Thread: Mullin's best bears Top three QB's-who ya got

Originally Posted by Henry Burris

i'm fully aware of sid's achievements, but he didnt have he talent level of any of the other qbs mentioned. his title runs werent that amazing, and he was just a pioneer in football, much like cy young was with baseball, but no one would seriously say he was one of the best pitchers of all time; he just played in an era that allowed him to play better than he would today

But maybe he should be judged by the era he played in then. That was my dilemna so I did 3 from the legacy era and 3 from the modern era. At 6'2"/230lbs Bronco Nagurski was a monster FB in his era but today there are HB's who would outweigh him by 10-20lbs. Each guy I chose was a dominant player in his era at least as far as the Bears are concerned.

dabears

Originally Posted by dabears54

how is winning 4 titles in 6 years not amazing?.. I do no get that..( and winning 73-0 in a title game beyond amazing..)

And will disagree about the talent level, think many of the "all time greats" in sports would acheieve the same in today's game- they would be better conditioned stronger etc just like today's players.. be it a babe ruth or lou gehring or walter johnson..a luckman or bronko nagurski.. Think these players Such standout's at their craft, and so superior and such will to win, it wouldn't matter when played they would still be stars and champsions in today's game.

No way any of them would be stars today. Babe ruth was 230 something and fat. He wouldnt make a triple a team today. They were good for their time, but with workout routines and medicine, surgery and nutrition the way it is, thy simply would not be. Like soulman said, different eras...but to say 4 championships in 6 years is amazing, well, he wasnt the most important cog, and if he had an equivelant, it'd be terry bradshaw, a qb who happened to be on the right team.. anyhoo, thats just my opinion, and if we had any real success at qb, he wouldnt even be in the discussion.

Originally Posted by Henry Burris

No way any of them would be stars today. Babe ruth was 230 something and fat. He wouldnt make a triple a team today. They were good for their time, but with workout routines and medicine, surgery and nutrition the way it is, thy simply would not be. Like soulman said, different eras...but to say 4 championships in 6 years is amazing, well, he wasnt the most important cog, and if he had an equivelant, it'd be terry bradshaw, a qb who happened to be on the right team.. anyhoo, thats just my opinion, and if we had any real success at qb, he wouldnt even be in the discussion.

Let's just say, as you point out, that in their respective eras they were the top guys in the game. But what Luckman accomplished in the 40's he could not have duplicated in the 70's. Both were surrounded by very dominant teams but I still don't think many give Luckman credit for being as good an athlete as he was. He was an All-American RB in college trained to play in a wing-style backfield but he metamorphosed quite nicely into a very good t-formation QB. He wasn't the Bears only weapon but he was a weapon.

Who knows how many more SB's the 80's Bears may have won had McMahon stayed healthy. As a pure passer there are quite a few Bears QB's who would pass him up but he was a great leader and he knew how to win. It was his intangibles that made him special and maybe it was the same with Sid Luckman although I never saw him play.

Obviously the first post covers everything and u can't argue with it. I can only speak to guys I've seen play :
1) Jimmy Mac- My all-time favorite Bear as much for his personality ( getting out of the limo for his first press conference at Halas Hall holding a beer ) as for his swagger on the field. Hope to see one... just one ... more Bears QB with this kind of cool and knack for winning b4 I'm hangin with Elvis.
2) Kramer- Was good more times than not, and it was fun to see a real passing game again after he got here.
3) Cutler- The most talented of the three, who has made some real eye opening throws ( and some real boneheaded ones ) but who should finish at the top of the list in the end.

I

Originally Posted by soulman

Let's just say, as you point out, that in their respective eras they were the top guys in the game. But what Luckman accomplished in the 40's he could not have duplicated in the 70's. Both were surrounded by very dominant teams but I still don't think many give Luckman credit for being as good an athlete as he was. He was an All-American RB in college trained to play in a wing-style backfield but he metamorphosed quite nicely into a very good t-formation QB. He wasn't the Bears only weapon but he was a weapon.

Who knows how many more SB's the 80's Bears may have won had McMahon stayed healthy. As a pure passer there are quite a few Bears QB's who would pass him up but he was a great leader and he knew how to win. It was his intangibles that made him special and maybe it was the same with Sid Luckman although I never saw him play.

Good point. I'm just going off the fact that players from so long ago really dont have the same talent as even players with only one or two good years these days, which is why i wouldnt pick luckman over my guys

Sid Luckman was named to the NFL's Top 100 Greatest Players of All Time list. That being said, he is the only Bears quarterback who made the list. I happen to think that a quarterback who wins is often the greatest player at any particular point in a team's history, and if that quarterback wins a slew of championships, then you talk about him among the all-time greats. Tom Brady is not as good of a quarterback mechanically as Peyton Manning and it's not even close, but he often gets more respect from the media because he led the Patriots to four Super Bowls and three World Championships. Even more interesting is Joe Montana. Montana was definitely not Manning's equal in the way of mechanics, instinct, or arm strength much like Brady isn't today, but the NFL Top 100 list rated him four spots ahead of Manning because he led the 49ers to four Super Bowl championships. It doesn't matter what your stats are. What does matter if you are a quarterback is whether you are/were a winner. Somehow, I am surprised that Bart Starr didn't get ranked higher than 52nd and Brady higher than 21st when they won more championships than Manning and Favre.

Anyway, here are my three greatest Bears quarterbacks of all time:

1) Sid Luckman: 'Nuff said. He won four NFL Championships in the 1940s and is the team's all-time leading passer.

2) Bill Wade: Quarterbacked the Bears to the 1963 NFL Championship. Is arguably the most underappreciated quarterback in franchise history due to the dominance posted by the team's defenses back in the early 1960s, in particular, 1963, when the team only averaged giving up approximately 10 points per game.

3) Jim McMahon: Quarterbacked the Bears to five division titles and the victory in Super Bowl XX. Had he stayed healthy through the 1980s, we might have been talking about a dynasty for the Bears throughout the course of the decade.

Honorable Mention:

Jay Cutler: He is arguably the most talented QB in the history of the franchise, yet hasn't even tapped into his full potential.

Jim Harbaugh: He, too, had a lot of potential, but Ditka's meddling ways forced him to never reach it until he arrived in Indianapolis.