Which quarterback's season was most impressive?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Deeko

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
1984 Dan Marino 362-564, 64.2%, 5084 yards, 9.01 ypa, 48 TD, 17 INT, 108.9 rating
2004 Peyton Manning 336-497. 67.6%, 4557 yards, 9.2 ypa, 49 TD, 10 INT 121.1 rating
2007 Tom Brady 398-578, 68.9%, 4806 yards, 8.3 ypa, 50TD, 8 INT, 117.2 rating

Marino
Pros
-Accomplished in an era with much more leniant rules for the defense (no illegal contact rule, rules protecting the QB)
-Weak WR/RB corps comparatively (Mark Clayton/Mark Duper WR, Tony Nathan RB)
-Went to the Superbowl (lost to 49ers)
Cons
-lowest completion %, TD % (8.5), highest INT % (3)

Manning
Pros
-Accomplished in 15 games (sat out last game, season already decided)
-Highest YPA, TD % (9.9%), rating
Cons
-Lost in the playoffs, prior to the Superbowl
-Home stadium is a dome, could inflate numbers

Brady
Pros
-Team went 16-0 (playoffs currently undecided)
-Highest completion %, lowest INT % (1.4)
Cons
-Lowest YPA
-Team accused of running up score, could inflate numbers
 
A

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
I would have to go with Manning, as much I do not care for him as a player. I based that on his higher YPA, the fewer number of attempts, and number of games. I would put Marino's season 2nd due to quality of WR, rules at the time, and the fact it was only his 2nd season.

Out of the 3 I hold Brady in the highest regard as a QB. If I had to choose which of those 3 I would want behind center it would be him, no questions asked.

I would also put Rice ahead of Moss. He set the TD reception record in 12 games while it took Moss 16 to break. He never had down years in his prime and definitely did not take plays off. Moss has better natural talent but Rice was the better football player, the consumate pro.
 
waggy

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
oh man thats rough. i am going to have to go with option #4. Rex grossman! yesss!



to be fair i think all 3 of them are amazing. Cooper town entries on the first ballot.
 
waggy

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: JRich
Terry Bradshaw

Pros: 4 SB rings

Cons: Hick

:D
Click to expand...

i don't think bradshaw has had the numbers of manning, payton,or mariano.

BUT i sure in the hell would put him in the top 10 best QB's ever. oh and he does play the hick image up don't he? heh he cracks me up at times.
 
A

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: JRich
Terry Bradshaw

Pros: 4 SB rings

Cons: Hick

:D
Click to expand...

i don't think bradshaw has had the numbers of manning, payton,or mariano.

BUT i sure in the hell would put him in the top 10 best QB's ever. oh and he does play the hick image up don't he? heh he cracks me up at times.
Click to expand...


I don't think he is playing lol. He doesn't have their numbers, partly because he played on a power running offense but also because of the era he played.

http://www.pro-football-refere...players/B/BradTe00.htm

I mentioned this player in the Giants thread, a man before his time and almost always forgotten, (Automatic) Otto Graham. Took the Clowns to TEN straight championships and won 7. His stats compared to Bradshaw who played decades later are stunning, especially TDs, yards, completion %, YPA. Granted he enjoyed playing under the brainchild of Paul Brown's offensive scheme that was later refined by Walsh and commonly called the "west coast offense" in todays game. The fabled Doomsday Defense was created by Landry to counter this scheme.

http://www.pro-football-refere...players/G/GrahOt00.htm

 
Deeko

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
Yea really, those that say championships are all that matter in determining the best should really look no further than Graham. Amazing how quickly we forget people in the NFL.
 
C

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Marino by far. In 1984 the teams were just better and the talent pool was not as depleted as it is now. I am having a real hard time with the whole Patriots thing to be honest. They got caught blatantly cheating. If that had of happened in the NCAA they would have been forced to forfeit the game at the very least. I don't know about the other NFL fans but I for one don't have much respect for them or their accomplishments. And more than likely they had been stealing signs for a long time. They just didn't get caught.
 
K

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
I have to say Marino. He was the whole offense, and the rules for secondary D are so strict now it's ridiculous.
 
S

Sqube

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2004
3,078
1
0
Originally posted by: classy
Marino by far. In 1984 the teams were just better and the talent pool was not as depleted as it is now. I am having a real hard time with the whole Patriots thing to be honest. They got caught blatantly cheating. If that had of happened in the NCAA they would have been forced to forfeit the game at the very least. I don't know about the other NFL fans but I for one don't have much respect for them or their accomplishments. And more than likely they had been stealing signs for a long time. They just didn't get caught.
Click to expand...

If somebody would tell me that they were the only ones caught cheating, I'd have a lot more respect for this point. But the whole "they were the only ones who got caught" business... come on. Also, there's the fact that the Jets were caught filming the Patriots and the Pats didn't say anything about it.

It's easy to hate the Pats these days, but stealing signs or not, it's just not that easy to win all the games in the regular season. You have to be so focused, things have to go so right... Jesus Christ, just give them credit where it's due. You don't have to worship them, you just have to acknowledge the fact that they did something impressive.

As to the OP:
Brady
Marino
Manning

Brady has rings, Marino didn't have amazing receivers, Manning played in a dome and couldn't translate single-season records to rings.
 
S

Shlong

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2002
3,130
59
91
Originally posted by: classy
Marino by far. In 1984 the teams were just better and the talent pool was not as depleted as it is now. I am having a real hard time with the whole Patriots thing to be honest. They got caught blatantly cheating. If that had of happened in the NCAA they would have been forced to forfeit the game at the very least. I don't know about the other NFL fans but I for one don't have much respect for them or their accomplishments. And more than likely they had been stealing signs for a long time. They just didn't get caught.
Click to expand...

Athletes are much better today across the board. Also consider that Bill Parcells (who's seen a lot) thinks these 07 Pats could beat the 85 Bears (Mike Ditka also said these Pats would score a bunch against their vaunted defense as well because they would spread em out), the 89 49ers, and 92 Cowboys... says a lot. They got caught cheating but I'm sure a lot of other teams did the same (but it was hush-hush). Even so, after week 1 they went on a rampage & even looked more impressive.

As for the QB's I would take Marino b/c he had less to work with. I would put Manning 2nd b/c he did it in 15 games (although he had the advantage of playing in weather controlled Dome while Brady had to fight the elements in December).
 
L

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
11,518
670
126
Marino by far. Marino was playing with the least talented receivers. He also broke 6 NFL records that season and took his team to the Super Bowl.

Not only that?.the biggest thing is the did this in his second year. SECOND year.

Manning and Brady play with 2 of the top 5 receivers in the league. They are also in the prime of their career.
 
pmoa

pmoa

Platinum Member
Dec 24, 2001
2,623
3
81
Originally posted by: waggy
oh man thats rough. i am going to have to go with option #4. Rex grossman! yesss!



to be fair i think all 3 of them are amazing. Cooper town entries on the first ballot.
Click to expand...

I think you meant Canton :confused:
 
Deeko

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
Maybe, but this isn't about who was the better QB or who had the better career...just who had the best individual season.
 
Red Dawn

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Deeko
Maybe, but this isn't about who was the better QB or who had the better career...just who had the best individual season.
Click to expand...
Still Montana, at least better than Marino because stats doesn't measn anything if you don't win the big one. Also another stat that isn't included is come from behind wins in the 4th quarter. Montana wipes Marino out in that very important stat which illustrates who's the better field general which is the most important aspect of being a QB.

BTW, How bout them Cowboys?? Bwuahahaha!
 
Deeko

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Deeko
Maybe, but this isn't about who was the better QB or who had the better career...just who had the best individual season.
Click to expand...
Still Montana, at least better than Marino because stats doesn't measn anything if you don't win the big one. Also another stat that isn't included is come from behind wins in the 4th quarter. Montana wipes Marino out in that very important stat which illustrates who's the better field general which is the most important aspect of being a QB.

BTW, How bout them Cowboys?? Bwuahahaha!
Click to expand...

Not to hijack my own thread, but Dallas barely played any starters (aikman is a moron, most of the starters WEREN'T playing), and they had nothing to play for anyway, whereas Washington was fighting for a playoff spot. Whatever, I'm not concerned.

As for single season...Marino at least went to the Superbowl that year, Brady hasn't yet (and Manning certainly didn't). And I HATE using wins as a barometer for QBs. It's absurd! About 30-35 players play in a given game - granted the QB is the leader of the offense, they are just a factor in the equation of a win. Montana had a much better team around him than Marino, which led to more wins. I'm not saying Marino was better than Montana, just that it's stupid to say "Montana is better because he won Superbowls". Of course, most people disagree with me on that, but whatever. I think it's absurd.

If Brady doesn't win the Superbowl this year, are you saying that he had a better year in 2001? Brady, not Brady's team.
 
Red Dawn

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Deeko
Maybe, but this isn't about who was the better QB or who had the better career...just who had the best individual season.
Click to expand...
Still Montana, at least better than Marino because stats doesn't measn anything if you don't win the big one. Also another stat that isn't included is come from behind wins in the 4th quarter. Montana wipes Marino out in that very important stat which illustrates who's the better field general which is the most important aspect of being a QB.

BTW, How bout them Cowboys?? Bwuahahaha!
Click to expand...

Not to hijack my own thread, but Dallas barely played any starters (aikman is a moron, most of the starters WEREN'T playing), and they had nothing to play for anyway, whereas Washington was fighting for a playoff spot. Whatever, I'm not concerned.

As for single season...Marino at least went to the Superbowl that year, Brady hasn't yet (and Manning certainly didn't). And I HATE using wins as a barometer for QBs. It's absurd! About 30-35 players play in a given game - granted the QB is the leader of the offense, they are just a factor in the equation of a win. Montana had a much better team around him than Marino, which led to more wins. I'm not saying Marino was better than Montana, just that it's stupid to say "Montana is better because he won Superbowls". Of course, most people disagree with me on that, but whatever. I think it's absurd.

If Brady doesn't win the Superbowl this year, are you saying that he had a better year in 2001? Brady, not Brady's team.
Click to expand...
Brady would.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom