Best QB in Raiders history (2 Viewers)

[Chase Stuart]

Got into a debate with someone the other day about the two questions above. Thoughts are very appreciated in addition to voting.

 

[bcr8f]

I didn't see Lamonica I did watch Stabler bringing the team back in the 4th quarter many times.

 

[massraider]

1. Stabler

2. Plunkett

3. Lamonica

 

[Chase Stuart]

1. Stabler2. Plunkett3. Lamonica

I don't think a reasonable argument could be made that Plunkett was even close to the level of Stabler or Lominca, much less better than either of them. Gannon is clearly ahead of Plunkett, as well, IMO.Note: 2>1>0 does not, in my opinion, resemble a reasonable argument.

 

[travdogg]

It depends if you are ranking career value or peak value. I'd say at his peak Rich Gannon was better than either of them. As for career value, I'd probably lean toward Stabler who had a very long and solid career for the Raiders.

 

[raidergil]

I did not see the Mad Bomber play, but have seen every Raider QB since and Stabler is the best in my opinion. Plunkett didn’t have nearly the talent, but you have to admire the way he resurrected his career and won 2 SBs. Gannon was in a perfect offense to succeed, and he was working with 2 HOF WRs.

Stabler was an early day Steve Young, and not just being lefties. He was very accurate finishing in the top 5 in completion % most every year of his career despite the emphasis on downfield throwing in the 70s. In 1976 he completed nearly 67% of his passes with an avg. per att of 9.4 yds. This is a higher per attempt avg than people like Bradshaw, Fouts, Elway & Montana. In today’s west coast offense he’d kill teams.

He also had great running ability early in his career. The nickname ‘Snake’ was due to his running ability. Recall it was his 30 yard run that gave the Raiders the late lead in the Immaculate Reception game. Unfortunately, knee injuries took away most of his scrambling abililty.

Stabler was a magician late in games. Some of his plays have gone down in football lore – “Sea of Hands”, “Ghost to the Post”, and the “Holy Roller”. He found a way to win.

Stabler barely played in his 1st 3 yrs & then came in and had great success finishing with a career win % of 65%. However, like Young, people wondered if he could win ‘the big one’ until he finally pulled it off in 76. If not for a horrendous call in Denver in the AFC championship game in 77 he would have had the opportunity to play for back-to-back championships. The only reason he didn’t appear in more SBs is that he faced one of the greatest teams in NFL history in the AFC playoffs each year.

Lamonica put up 3 huge years in a row, led the Raiders to a SB appearance and had a ridiculous 75% winning %. However, he played in the pass happy AFL so the competition wasn’t at the same level as what Stabler faced.

Then there’s the story Stabler retold in his book about he & Biletnikoff & a couple females out drinking in a hot tub until 4AM on a Sat night in Denver. They woke up to a blizzard the next day & Stabler went out & threw 4 TDs for the win.

In my opinion Stabler should be in the HOF.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I did not see the Mad Bomber play, but have seen every Raider QB since and Stabler is the best in my opinion. Plunkett didn’t have nearly the talent, but you have to admire the way he resurrected his career and won 2 SBs. Gannon was in a perfect offense to succeed, and he was working with 2 HOF WRs.

Stabler was an early day Steve Young, and not just being lefties. He was very accurate finishing in the top 5 in completion % most every year of his career despite the emphasis on downfield throwing in the 70s. In 1976 he completed nearly 67% of his passes with an avg. per att of 9.4 yds. This is a higher per attempt avg than people like Bradshaw, Fouts, Elway & Montana. In today’s west coast offense he’d kill teams.

He also had great running ability early in his career. The nickname ‘Snake’ was due to his running ability. Recall it was his 30 yard run that gave the Raiders the late lead in the Immaculate Reception game. Unfortunately, knee injuries took away most of his scrambling abililty.

Stabler was a magician late in games. Some of his plays have gone down in football lore – “Sea of Hands”, “Ghost to the Post”, and the “Holy Roller”. He found a way to win.

Stabler barely played in his 1st 3 yrs & then came in and had great success finishing with a career win % of 65%. However, like Young, people wondered if he could win ‘the big one’ until he finally pulled it off in 76. If not for a horrendous call in Denver in the AFC championship game in 77 he would have had the opportunity to play for back-to-back championships. The only reason he didn’t appear in more SBs is that he faced one of the greatest teams in NFL history in the AFC playoffs each year.

Lamonica put up 3 huge years in a row, led the Raiders to a SB appearance and had a ridiculous 75% winning %. However, he played in the pass happy AFL so the competition wasn’t at the same level as what Stabler faced.

Then there’s the story Stabler retold in his book about he & Biletnikoff & a couple females out drinking in a hot tub until 4AM on a Sat night in Denver. They woke up to a blizzard the next day & Stabler went out & threw 4 TDs for the win.

In my opinion Stabler should be in the HOF.

Good post. Stabler had two huge years -- '74 and '76 -- but he was playing on some incredibly talented offenses. Lamonica had the three enormous seasons you mentioned and was very good in '70, as well. I think the dig on the AFL is unfair -- by the late '60s, I think the competition was pretty tough. 1961 AFL? A good ways behind the NFL. But by the middle and end of the decade I think the AFL had caught up.

Jason Lisk is doing a great job recapping the history of the AFL over on the PFR blog:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?cat=39

I think Lamonica has the better HOF case. Stabler was terrific for two seasons, solid for three more, and that was it. And he had the benefit of playing, at various times, with six HOFers on offense and Cliff Branch, a borderline HOFer.

 

[Portis 26]

Randall Magnum

 

[KellysHeroes]

What about Rich Gannon

Oakland Raiders

In February 1999 he was signed as a free agent by the Oakland Raiders. He excelled in Jon Gruden's West Coast offense and was voted to the Pro Bowl in his first year as a Raider, the first of four straight selections. In 2001 and 2002, he won the Pro Bowl MVP award consecutively, a feat achieved by no other NFL player. Gannon won the NFL Most Valuable Player Award after a record-setting 2002 season, throwing for 4,689 yards and 26 touchdowns, which helped the Raiders advance to Super Bowl XXXVII. He led the league in with 418 completions on 618 attempts.

The best they had in a long time

 

[Silver & Black]

I had to go with

<-------------------------------

For those people talking about Gannon, I think there is no comparison. Don't get me wrong, Gannon was a perfect fit for the offense Oakland was running at the time. Oakland had the best rushing offense in the league and Gannon ran that Gruden offense as good as it could have been run.

But the game was much different when the snake was playing. Stabler was tough and he was gritty and he knew how to win. He could throw from any position, anywhere on the field.

Love the snake!

 

[Adebisi]

Randall Magnum

Are we gonna see any more of these franchise threads any time soon?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

why doesnt plunkett deserve consideration?

2 superbowls.

 

[Chase Stuart]

why doesnt plunkett deserve consideration? 2 superbowls.

Because we're just looking at the best QBs in Raiders history, not the one who won the most Super Bowls. If we're talking about the Patriots or the Chiefs, it's one and the same; if we're talking about the Raiders or the Dolphins, it's not.

 

[Dancing Bear]

why doesnt plunkett deserve consideration? 2 superbowls.

Plunkett was absolute money in the PlayOffs with a 7-1 record.Lamonica was 4-5 in the PlayOffs with no Super Bowl victories.Stabler was 7-6 in the PlayOffs with 1 Super Bowl victory.Plunkett has to definitely be considered here, and should win out ...I voted "Other" and "Stabler" respectively.

 

[CalBear]

why doesnt plunkett deserve consideration? 2 superbowls.

Plunkett was absolute money in the PlayOffs with a 7-1 record.Lamonica was 4-5 in the PlayOffs with no Super Bowl victories.Stabler was 7-6 in the PlayOffs with 1 Super Bowl victory.Plunkett has to definitely be considered here, and should win out ...I voted "Other" and "Stabler" respectively.

Plunkett threw 11 TDs vs. 12 INTs in 10 postseason games. During the first Super Bowl run, Plunkett nearly lost the game against Cleveland (yes, Cleveland!), going 14-30 for 149 yards with no TDs and 2 INTs (including one returned for a TD). In their second Super Bowl win, he had just 172 yards passing in a 38-9 win; the Raiders scored 2 defensive TDs in the first half, and Marcus Allen had a 74-yard TD run. Yes, the Raiders won, but it's not particualrly because of anything Plunkett did. He won Super Bowls, but the fact that he won two Super Bowls no more makes him the best Raiders QB ever than it makes Kenny King the best Raiders RB ever, or Dave Dalby the best center.

 

[MarshallRob]

why doesnt plunkett deserve consideration? 2 superbowls.

Plunkett was absolute money in the PlayOffs with a 7-1 record.Lamonica was 4-5 in the PlayOffs with no Super Bowl victories.Stabler was 7-6 in the PlayOffs with 1 Super Bowl victory.Plunkett has to definitely be considered here, and should win out ...I voted "Other" and "Stabler" respectively.

Plunkett threw 11 TDs vs. 12 INTs in 10 postseason games. During the first Super Bowl run, Plunkett nearly lost the game against Cleveland (yes, Cleveland!), going 14-30 for 149 yards with no TDs and 2 INTs (including one returned for a TD). In their second Super Bowl win, he had just 172 yards passing in a 38-9 win; the Raiders scored 2 defensive TDs in the first half, and Marcus Allen had a 74-yard TD run. Yes, the Raiders won, but it's not particualrly because of anything Plunkett did. He won Super Bowls, but the fact that he won two Super Bowls no more makes him the best Raiders QB ever than it makes Kenny King the best Raiders RB ever, or Dave Dalby the best center.

Good post. It should also be pointed out that in his prime Stabler faced about the toughest playoff competition possible, losing to the 1973 Dolphins and to the Steelers dynasty three times.

 

[Miz4]

why doesnt plunkett deserve consideration? 2 superbowls.

Plunkett was absolute money in the PlayOffs with a 7-1 record.Lamonica was 4-5 in the PlayOffs with no Super Bowl victories.Stabler was 7-6 in the PlayOffs with 1 Super Bowl victory.Plunkett has to definitely be considered here, and should win out ...I voted "Other" and "Stabler" respectively.

I've watched every Raider QB play on this list including Lamonica and in my opinion, stats don't mean a thing, winning big games does. I would rate them Stabler>>Plunkett>>Lamonica>>Gannon.Anytime there was a big game to win, Stabler had the confidence and his team knew they would win. Plunkett scared the heck out of you, EVERY time he had to move more then one step when being rushed, be he somehow found a way to win. Lamonica had the best down field WR in Warren Wells. He threw the ball as long and as far as he could and Warren would run underneath it. Gannon, although had some great statistical years, I couldn't remember more that once or twice him bringing the team down on the last drive and winning the game. Let alone, it being a BIG game. He was not a winner under pressure.

 

[One]

D. I'm too young

 

[brutha]

I did not see the Mad Bomber play, but have seen every Raider QB since and Stabler is the best in my opinion. Plunkett didn’t have nearly the talent, but you have to admire the way he resurrected his career and won 2 SBs. Gannon was in a perfect offense to succeed, and he was working with 2 HOF WRs.Stabler was an early day Steve Young, and not just being lefties. He was very accurate finishing in the top 5 in completion % most every year of his career despite the emphasis on downfield throwing in the 70s. In 1976 he completed nearly 67% of his passes with an avg. per att of 9.4 yds. This is a higher per attempt avg than people like Bradshaw, Fouts, Elway & Montana. In today’s west coast offense he’d kill teams.He also had great running ability early in his career. The nickname ‘Snake’ was due to his running ability. Recall it was his 30 yard run that gave the Raiders the late lead in the Immaculate Reception game. Unfortunately, knee injuries took away most of his scrambling abililty.Stabler was a magician late in games. Some of his plays have gone down in football lore – “Sea of Hands”, “Ghost to the Post”, and the “Holy Roller”. He found a way to win.Stabler barely played in his 1st 3 yrs & then came in and had great success finishing with a career win % of 65%. However, like Young, people wondered if he could win ‘the big one’ until he finally pulled it off in 76. If not for a horrendous call in Denver in the AFC championship game in 77 he would have had the opportunity to play for back-to-back championships. The only reason he didn’t appear in more SBs is that he faced one of the greatest teams in NFL history in the AFC playoffs each year.Lamonica put up 3 huge years in a row, led the Raiders to a SB appearance and had a ridiculous 75% winning %. However, he played in the pass happy AFL so the competition wasn’t at the same level as what Stabler faced.Then there’s the story Stabler retold in his book about he & Biletnikoff & a couple females out drinking in a hot tub until 4AM on a Sat night in Denver. They woke up to a blizzard the next day & Stabler went out & threw 4 TDs for the win.In my opinion Stabler should be in the HOF.

this is by far the best post on the topic here - admittedly not that it has much competition, frankly, but still -it's easily a 2-horse race between Stabler and Lamonica, and Stabler gets the nod.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Plunkett threw 11 TDs vs. 12 INTs in 10 postseason games. During the first Super Bowl run, Plunkett nearly lost the game against Cleveland (yes, Cleveland!), going 14-30 for 149 yards with no TDs and 2 INTs (including one returned for a TD). In their second Super Bowl win, he had just 172 yards passing in a 38-9 win; the Raiders scored 2 defensive TDs in the first half, and Marcus Allen had a 74-yard TD run. Yes, the Raiders won, but it's not particualrly because of anything Plunkett did. He won Super Bowls, but the fact that he won two Super Bowls no more makes him the best Raiders QB ever than it makes Kenny King the best Raiders RB ever, or Dave Dalby the best center.

And clearly, Trent Dilfer > Warren Moon.FOR THE LOVE OF GOD FOOTBALL IS A TEAM GAME PEOPLE. Superbowls != skill.

 

[radballs]

Has to be Marinovich.

 

[Andy Herron]

I can only vaguely recall watching Lamonica, whom I think Al Davis has had "blueprinted" in his mind in his continuous search for the next great Raiders QB ever since (The mad bomber and all). However, I think Stabler was more effective and prolific- all things considered. I gave Stabler the nod both times.

 

[Chase Stuart]

it's easily a 2-horse race between Stabler and Lamonica, and Stabler gets the nod.

Yes, it's easily a 2-horse race. I don't see why Stabler gets the nod, though. Objectively, Lamonica was a more efficient and productive QB than Stabler. For all his downfield passing (14.9 YPC vs. 12.3) he had a better INT rate (5.3 vs. 5.9) and better TD rate (6.3 vs. 5.1), and he was better in his peak years. Lamonica was good for longer, but I don't think that's enough to make up for the difference in quality.

 

[Miz4]

it's easily a 2-horse race between Stabler and Lamonica, and Stabler gets the nod.

Yes, it's easily a 2-horse race. I don't see why Stabler gets the nod, though. Objectively, Lamonica was a more efficient and productive QB than Stabler. For all his downfield passing (14.9 YPC vs. 12.3) he had a better INT rate (5.3 vs. 5.9) and better TD rate (6.3 vs. 5.1), and he was better in his peak years. Lamonica was good for longer, but I don't think that's enough to make up for the difference in quality.

After watching both of them for years (yes I am old) and I don't care about looking at pure statistics (because I am not a bean counter), If I wanted one of them to lead my team to a win, I would pick Stabler EVERY TIME. Plain and simple.

 

[Chase Stuart]

it's easily a 2-horse race between Stabler and Lamonica, and Stabler gets the nod.

Yes, it's easily a 2-horse race. I don't see why Stabler gets the nod, though. Objectively, Lamonica was a more efficient and productive QB than Stabler. For all his downfield passing (14.9 YPC vs. 12.3) he had a better INT rate (5.3 vs. 5.9) and better TD rate (6.3 vs. 5.1), and he was better in his peak years. Lamonica was good for longer, but I don't think that's enough to make up for the difference in quality.

After watching both of them for years (yes I am old) and I don't care about looking at pure statistics (because I am not a bean counter), If I wanted one of them to lead my team to a win, I would pick Stabler EVERY TIME. Plain and simple.

But why? What did you see in them after watching them for so long to make you say Stabler was better?

 

[Miz4]

it's easily a 2-horse race between Stabler and Lamonica, and Stabler gets the nod.

Yes, it's easily a 2-horse race. I don't see why Stabler gets the nod, though. Objectively, Lamonica was a more efficient and productive QB than Stabler. For all his downfield passing (14.9 YPC vs. 12.3) he had a better INT rate (5.3 vs. 5.9) and better TD rate (6.3 vs. 5.1), and he was better in his peak years. Lamonica was good for longer, but I don't think that's enough to make up for the difference in quality.

After watching both of them for years (yes I am old) and I don't care about looking at pure statistics (because I am not a bean counter), If I wanted one of them to lead my team to a win, I would pick Stabler EVERY TIME. Plain and simple.

But why? What did you see in them after watching them for so long to make you say Stabler was better?

Personally, I think it was the confidence that Stabler put in his teammates that they were going to come down and win the game. A leadership quality that all his teammates rallied behind, and then they won. So many exciting games, like a previous poster said. Sea of Hands, Holy roller and the ones that didn't get a name. I wouldn't put Stabler in the same company as Montana, but he was absolutly a better QB than Lamonica.

 

[Chase Stuart]

it's easily a 2-horse race between Stabler and Lamonica, and Stabler gets the nod.

Yes, it's easily a 2-horse race. I don't see why Stabler gets the nod, though. Objectively, Lamonica was a more efficient and productive QB than Stabler. For all his downfield passing (14.9 YPC vs. 12.3) he had a better INT rate (5.3 vs. 5.9) and better TD rate (6.3 vs. 5.1), and he was better in his peak years. Lamonica was good for longer, but I don't think that's enough to make up for the difference in quality.

After watching both of them for years (yes I am old) and I don't care about looking at pure statistics (because I am not a bean counter), If I wanted one of them to lead my team to a win, I would pick Stabler EVERY TIME. Plain and simple.

But why? What did you see in them after watching them for so long to make you say Stabler was better?

Personally, I think it was the confidence that Stabler put in his teammates that they were going to come down and win the game. A leadership quality that all his teammates rallied behind, and then they won. So many exciting games, like a previous poster said. Sea of Hands, Holy roller and the ones that didn't get a name. I wouldn't put Stabler in the same company as Montana, but he was absolutly a better QB than Lamonica.

Well, Lamonica has the second best winning percentage in NFL history (behind Otto Graham) among QBs with 50 or more wins; I wouldn't say Lamonica's teammates had trouble rallying behind him and winning.