Brady vs Starr

[Smidgeon]

Who's better in the clutch?

Rex Ryan says that the Brady-Belichick duo is possibly the best in history because they're gunning for a fourth trophy in the modern age. Bradshaw did it too, but I don't think many people put him in that category. Starr only had 2 Super Bowls, but he had three championships before that. And Cold Hard Football Facts puts him as the greatest QB in history for what he did in the playoffs. But that was a few years ago.

So who'd you take?

[Upnorth]

At least you came to the right place for an unbiased poll. Who's Brady again??? Hehehe.

Seriously Brady is amazing but I would go with Starr

[Joemailman]

Starr has a career postseason passer rating of over 100 at a time when anything over 70 was considered outstanding. It was relatively neanderthal football. It wasn't until 1967 that offenses could even put a receiver in motion. Starr may have been the best ever at thinking on his feet. I often think of what Starr would have done when I see a QB call timeout because the defense is lined up in a way he didn't expect.

[King Friday]

Difficult to compare QBs from different eras. The game was far different in 1960. Honestly, you can't go wrong with either...and you are splitting hairs trying to decide between them.

[Bretsky]

Is this the same Rex Ryan who was blabbermouthing about how the Ravens would beat Hoody Genius and the Brady Bunch ?
It's a tough call
To be Homer or To Be Honest ?
hmmmmm

[Joemailman]

Is this the same Rex Ryan who was blabbermouthing about how the Ravens would beat Hoody Genius and the Brady Bunch ?
It's a tough call
To be Homer or To Be Honest ?
hmmmmm

Not sure you have to be a homer to pick the guy with the better passer rating, better won/loss percentage, and better TD/INT ratio.

[Bretsky]

Not sure you have to be a homer to pick the guy with the better passer rating, better won/loss percentage, and better TD/INT ratio.

I'm not really qualified to have a view here since I'm not old enough to have seen Starr play any more than highlights.......so that is where my view is from

but

Do you really think Starr has the skills and could accomplish anything near what Brady has in the current era ? In other words, does his talent level allow him to excel as much ?

[Joemailman]

I'm not really qualified to have a view here since I'm not old enough to have seen Starr play any more than highlights.......so that is where my view is from

but

Do you really think Starr has the skills and could accomplish anything near what Brady has in the current era ? In other words, does his talent level allow him to excel as much ?

It's hard to project how a player from one era would do in another era. Would Brady have done as well without the multiple receiver/motion offenses he plays in now? Hard to say. My point is that Starr was a better playoff quarterback in his era than Brady has been in his.

[King Friday]

It's hard to project how a player from one era would do in another era. Would Brady have done as well without the multiple receiver/motion offenses he plays in now? Hard to say. My point is that Starr was a better playoff quarterback in his era than Brady has been in his.

Of course Starr was a better playoff QB. He was on a team full of HOFers, and his Super Bowl wins came against teams that honestly did not matchup fairly with the legendary Packers. Starr did it over and over with the same cast and the same general strategy...because the players on the field for Green Bay were almost always better than those on the other side of the ball.

I think there is something to be said for a QB being successful with different personnel around him. That isn't to say that Starr would fail at it, but he never really had the chance. Brady has, and has shined. He has won a lot of playoff games playing against more evenly matched opponents. It is HARDER to be successful today than in the 1960s...there isn't even a comparison. So having great success in the 1960s really doesn't translate to today's game with 32 franchises and 12 playoff teams.

[Joemailman]

Of course Starr was a better playoff QB. He was on a team full of HOFers, and his Super Bowl wins came against teams that honestly did not matchup fairly with the legendary Packers. Starr did it over and over with the same cast and the same general strategy...because the players on the field for Green Bay were almost always better than those on the other side of the ball.

I think there is something to be said for a QB being successful with different personnel around him. That isn't to say that Starr would fail at it, but he never really had the chance. Brady has, and has shined. He has won a lot of playoff games playing against more evenly matched opponents. It is HARDER to be successful today than in the 1960s...there isn't even a comparison. So having great success in the 1960s really doesn't translate to today's game with 32 franchises and 12 playoff teams.

Huh? When Starr won his last title, Hornung was gone. Taylor was gone. Ron Kramer was gone. Max McGee was riding the bench. Starr most certainly was able to win with changing personnel.

[Scott Campbell]

It's Bart.

[Pugger]

Starr has a career postseason passer rating of over 100 at a time when anything over 70 was considered outstanding. It was relatively neanderthal football. It wasn't until 1967 that offenses could even put a receiver in motion. Starr may have been the best ever at thinking on his feet. I often think of what Starr would have done when I see a QB call timeout because the defense is lined up in a way he didn't expect.

It would be interesting if we could bring back Starr in his prime and see what he could do today. I'd wager he'd be very successful. Back in his day receivers could be hit past 5 from the LOS and QBs were not protected like they are today. Starr didn't have the strongest arm but he had it where it counts = between the ears.

[Patler]

Of course Starr was a better playoff QB. He was on a team full of HOFers, and his Super Bowl wins came against teams that honestly did not matchup fairly with the legendary Packers. Starr did it over and over with the same cast and the same general strategy...because the players on the field for Green Bay were almost always better than those on the other side of the ball.

I think there is something to be said for a QB being successful with different personnel around him. That isn't to say that Starr would fail at it, but he never really had the chance. Brady has, and has shined. He has won a lot of playoff games playing against more evenly matched opponents. It is HARDER to be successful today than in the 1960s...there isn't even a comparison. So having great success in the 1960s really doesn't translate to today's game with 32 franchises and 12 playoff teams.

Huh? When Starr won his last title, Hornung was gone. Taylor was gone. Ron Kramer was gone. Max McGee was riding the bench. Starr most certainly was able to win with changing personnel.

That is one of the big misconceptions, that the same group of players won all five titles in the '60s.
If you compare the starters in '62 (their second title) to those just 5 years later in '67 (their last title), there were 6 different starters on offense, 6 different starters on defense, a different kicker, a different punter and a different kick returner.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It would be interesting if we could bring back Starr in his prime and see what he could do today.

It would be even more interesting to see him play today as a spry 78-year-old. I'm guessing there would be a lot of check-downs and running to daylight.

[MadtownPacker]

I cant comment on Starr handling the current NFL because of my age but I am positive a bitch ass crybabay like brady wouldnt make it through one game in the 60s. He cries whenever he is touched and gets rattled once he is hit. Pretty sure the old timers would think he was a fag too with his Uggs (For men!!) boots. No offense to Harlan and other sexual deviants.