Quote Originally Posted by Maxie the Taxi View Post
Starr definitely profited from the Lombardi system. It's hard to compare QB's from that era to this, given the fact that then QB's called their own plays all day long. Some HC's sent the plays in every down with messengers, but Lombardi rarely did.

I think the biggest factor in the Packers' success in the era was talent at every position, offense and defense. High draft choices and great trades stocked the team with super talent and Lombardi wrung the last drop out of the players. I never felt we went into a game in those days out-manned or out-coached. With the team he had Lombardi didn't need Johnny Unitas to win. He needed a brilliant field general with an adequate arm and guts. Starr was that.

In that context, Starr was the greatest QB of his era. On the other hand, if I had a team then with mediocre talent, I'd probably want Unitas at QB instead of Starr. In many ways, Unitas was similar to Rodgers. He could carry a team on his back and win games with his arm alone. That's not to say the Colts weren't stacked with talent too in those days, but they weren't stacked across the board like the Packers were.

If you had your druthers, would you rather the Packers have Brady or Arod as our QB, given the quality of the Packers' players and HC?
That's a good question. Both are elite QBs. Have strong arms. Brady's more accurate, more durable and a better pocket passer than Rodgers. Rodgers' more athletic, obviously. I'm leaning toward Brady, especially if both in are their prime.

One thing for sure, I would never subscribe to that draft and develop bullshit with an elite QB like Brady or Rodgers on my team. Belichickism works.