Best Season By A QB (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

With all the other threads out there recently about best QB seasons, I enlisted Doug to run some numbers, basically comparing any QB season to the league average in that given year with regard to QB rating.

Basically, we took the indivudual QB passer rating and compared it to the league QB passer rating. Remember that even though some recent QBs have had monster seasons, many other QBs also had decent years that brought the league QB rating up.

I am not a huge fan of QB rating to begin with, but that is what the league has concocted to compare QB performance. Here is the list of the Top 25 (and the results may surprise a lot of people). Only counting from 1970 on . . .

+--------------------+------+-------------+----------------+-------+| name | year | pass_rating | lg_pass_rating | ratio |+--------------------+------+-------------+----------------+-------+| Roger Staubach | 1971 | 104.8 | 59.3 | 1.77 || Ken Stabler | 1976 | 103.4 | 63.6 | 1.63 || Bert Jones | 1976 | 102.5 | 63.6 | 1.61 || Ken Anderson | 1974 | 95.7 | 61.4 | 1.56 || Ken Stabler | 1974 | 94.9 | 61.4 | 1.55 || Joe Montana | 1989 | 112.4 | 73.3 | 1.53 || Bob Griese | 1971 | 90.9 | 59.3 | 1.53 || Roger Staubach | 1973 | 94.6 | 61.7 | 1.53 || Bob Griese | 1977 | 87.8 | 57.8 | 1.52 || Roger Staubach | 1977 | 87.0 | 57.8 | 1.51 || Fran Tarkenton | 1973 | 93.2 | 61.7 | 1.51 || John Brodie | 1970 | 93.8 | 62.5 | 1.50 || Peyton Manning | 2004 | 121.1 | 80.9 | 1.50 || Ken Anderson | 1975 | 93.9 | 62.8 | 1.50 || Dan Marino | 1984 | 108.9 | 73.2 | 1.49 || Steve Young | 1994 | 112.8 | 76.7 | 1.47 || Steve Young | 1992 | 107.0 | 72.8 | 1.47 || Virgil Carter | 1971 | 86.2 | 59.3 | 1.46 || Sonny Jurgensen | 1970 | 91.5 | 62.5 | 1.46 || Fran Tarkenton | 1975 | 91.8 | 62.8 | 1.46 || Pat Haden | 1977 | 84.5 | 57.8 | 1.46 || Tom Brady | 2007 | 117.2 | 80.9 | 1.45 || Kurt Warner | 1999 | 109.2 | 75.1 | 1.45 || John Hadl | 1973 | 88.8 | 61.7 | 1.44 || Craig Morton | 1970 | 89.8 | 62.5 | 1.44 |Here were the players that appeared in the Top 100 and how many seasons they had on the list . . .Steve Young – 7

Ken Anderson - 5

Bob Griese – 5

Roger Staubach – 5

Fran Tarkenton – 5

Peyton Manning – 4

Joe Montana – 4

Ken Stabler – 4

Jim Hart – 3

Bert Jones – 3

Billy Kilmer – 3

Dave Krieg – 3

Dan Marino – 3

Terry Bradshaw – 2

Boomer Esiason – 2

Dan Fouts – 2

Jim Kelly – 2

Greg Landry – 2

Craig Morton – 2

Kurt Warner – 2

Troy Aikman - 1

Steve Bartkowski – 1

Tom Brady – 1

Drew Brees – 1

John Brodie – 1

Virgil Carter – 1

Chris Chandler – 1

Daunte Culpepper – 1

Randall Cunningham – 1

Len Dawson – 1

Joe Ferguson – 1

Roman Gabriel – 1

Trent Green – 1

Brian Griese – 1

Pat Haden – 1

John Hadl – 1

Jim Harbaugh – 1

Charley Johnson – 1

Sonny Jurgensen – 1

Bernie Kosar – 1

Tommy Kramer – 1

Archie Manning – 1

Steve McNair – 1

Ken O'Brien – 1

Chad Pennington – 1

Mark Rypien – 1

Brian Sipe – 1

Norm Snead – 1

Vinny Testaverde – 1

Joe Theismann – 1

Danny White – 1

Wade Wilson – 1

Again, it doesn't "prove" anything, just another way to look at and compare the results.

 

[3nOut]

This only shows me how much better they were than other QBs that year, not compared to other great QBs of different eras. It shows me that there were only a handful of good quarterbacks in the 1970s, based on QB rating. And it wasn't until the 1980s that the league average QB rating was in the 70s.

 

[David Yudkin]

This only shows me how much better they were than other QBs that year, not compared to other great QBs of different eras. It shows me that there were only a handful of good quarterbacks in the 1970s, based on QB rating. And it wasn't until the 1980s that the league average QB rating was in the 70s.

So here is a theoretical question for you. If QUARTERBACK A played today and had 4000 passing yards and say 30 passing TD, would that be better or worse than someone from say 1975 that had 3200 and 25?Because this year, that would have ranked 7th and 5th respectively but in 1975 3200 and 25 would have led the league in both categories. 3200 and 25 would not have even ranked in the Top 10 this season.If you don't account for stat creep, it's impossible to compare anything except from very recent seasons.IMO, it shows that a typcial NFL QB in this era can put up numbers that the 70s QBs struggled to get.On a similar note, how can people not look at OJ Simpson's 1973 season and feel that his 2000 rushing yard effort was greater than other backs that have accomplished that feat when (a) they played fewer games) and (b) he outpaced the #2 rusher by almost 900 rushing yards.Let's use golf as another analogy. Say PLAYER X had a per round average of 72 in 1940 when the #2 golfer averaged 78 shots per round. Now players can average 67 or 68 shots per round, but they won't be 6 strokes ahead of the #2 golfer. So which is more impressive . . . the 1940 golfer or the 2007 golfer?

 

[3nOut]

This only shows me how much better they were than other QBs that year, not compared to other great QBs of different eras. It shows me that there were only a handful of good quarterbacks in the 1970s, based on QB rating. And it wasn't until the 1980s that the league average QB rating was in the 70s.

So here is a theoretical question for you. If QUARTERBACK A played today and had 4000 passing yards and say 30 passing TD, would that be better or worse than someone from say 1975 that had 3200 and 25?Because this year, that would have ranked 7th and 5th respectively but in 1975 3200 and 25 would have led the league in both categories. 3200 and 25 would not have even ranked in the Top 10 this season.If you don't account for stat creep, it's impossible to compare anything except from very recent seasons.IMO, it shows that a typcial NFL QB in this era can put up numbers that the 70s QBs struggled to get.On a similar note, how can people not look at OJ Simpson's 1973 season and feel that his 2000 rushing yard effort was greater than other backs that have accomplished that feat when (a) they played fewer games) and (b) he outpaced the #2 rusher by almost 900 rushing yards.Let's use golf as another analogy. Say PLAYER X had a per round average of 72 in 1940 when the #2 golfer averaged 78 shots per round. Now players can average 67 or 68 shots per round, but they won't be 6 strokes ahead of the #2 golfer. So which is more impressive . . . the 1940 golfer or the 2007 golfer?

so you are saying it is impossible to compare athletes from different eras? maybe becasue technology changes (like in golf) or that maybe the athletes today are different?

 

[3nOut]

OK I re-read your title. You are comparing best SEASONS by QBs, not best QBs. Got confused by the topcis of other threads. Sorry for the confusion

 

[David Yudkin]

so you are saying it is impossible to compare athletes from different eras? maybe becasue technology changes (like in golf) or that maybe the athletes today are different?

All I'm saying is that when 13 guys have 20 TD passes in a season, we really need to establish a baseline for what an average season is. There were 3 guys that did it in 1973.I only point this out to some posters who feel that players like Bradshaw, Tarkenton, Stabler, and others from the 70s and early 80s did not have the flashy stats that more recent players have . . . completely ignoring the way the game was played and focusing solely on the numbers.

 

[kwantam]

David,

You say

IMO, it shows that a typcial NFL QB in this era can put up numbers that the 70s QBs struggled to get.

That's true, but it has a lot to do with the shift in offensive style we've seen in the league in the last 40 years from a heavy emphasis on run to a heavy emphasis on passing. According to Michael Lewis in The Blind Side, the run/pass balance went from 60 run/40 pass in the 70's to 60 pass/40 run in 2001 (though it has swung back a little since then).Why has there been this shift? It largely has to do, IMHO, with (1) increased skill on average at quarterback, (2) rule changes promoting the passing offense, and (3) the advent of the West Coast offense. Especially because of (3), completion percentage has increased (and although yds/catch may have decreased, yds/att has still increased because of the higher success rate of an offense based on timed routes).

Now, you might be tempted to say "hey! (1) up there is just begging the question!" and it's true that point (1) assumes that modern quarterbacks are better than quarterbacks of 40+ years ago. In my view this is a relatively safe assumption on average, since nutrition, sports science, and especially the earning potential for quarterbacks have all increased. This does not invalidate comparisons between the best quarterbacks of the bygone era and those of today; both groups are standouts among their peers (though, to be completely honest, my personal feeling is that no quarterback before Marino would be better than replacement in the modern NFL---the game they played was a different one).

Before looking at the data you presented, my expectation was that standouts of the past would be far and away higher on this list than standout modern quarterbacks for precisely the reasons above: quarterbacks in their era were not as skilled and were in offenses that did not demand as much of them, and their numbers show it. Teams that had incredible players would in many cases scheme around them to great success, giving those cream of the crop QBs a chance to show off the skills they had that their peers lacked.

So does this mean that the greats of yester-year are better because they were further above replacement value? Hardly. If you offered me Peyton Manning or a young Roger Staubach, I wouldn't have to think about the answer for a second. What it means is that the game has changed, QBs are better on average now, and the rules and strategy of the game have been adjusted accordingly.

-=kwantam

 

[Colin Dowling]

I was just coming to post the info from Blind Side about the development of the passing game.

 

[David Yudkin]

For starters, I'm not suggesting anyone is better or worse than anyone else . . . only that the game is different now than 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

Similarly, even a QB like Kerry Collins (if he could time warp) could likely have been a better QB than many of the other QBs from the 70s. That is not the point.

There are a million and one reasons why the game is different, and the list could be extended ad infinitum (more complex plays, offensive specialists, the salary cap era, lax rules enforcement, etc.).

All I was doing was showing that comparing QBs against their peers in any given year gives us a different data set than the more standard fare of Marino/Brady/Manning/Culpepper as greatest season by a QB.

 

[kwantam]

All I was doing was showing that comparing QBs against their peers in any given year gives us a different data set than the more standard fare of Marino/Brady/Manning/Culpepper as greatest season by a QB.

I completely agree; I'm always interested in looking at new ways of slicing the data. Of course, half the fun is coming up with an explanation of why the slice looks the way it does -=kwantam

 

[Ray]

When people talk about the hall of fame, the measure is always how the player performed in relation to his peers from the era (pro bowls, all-pros, yardage/TD rank, etc.)

imo, this is a great way to compare QB performance from different eras. great post!

 

[dgreen]

When people talk about the hall of fame, the measure is always how the player performed in relation to his peers from the era (pro bowls, all-pros, yardage/TD rank, etc.)imo, this is a great way to compare QB performance from different eras. great post!

One of the problems, though, is defining an era.I think FBG should define the ***OFFICIAL*** eras.

 

[Sidewinder16]

So does this mean that the greats of yester-year are better because they were further above replacement value? Hardly. If you offered me Peyton Manning or a young Roger Staubach, I wouldn't have to think about the answer for a second.

If your choices are the best of the best vs. the best of the best, you're really just splitting hairs, no? What if the decision is Daunte Culpepper or Staubach? Or, Drew Brees or Staubach, or Kurt Warner or Staubach?If I have to choose Manning or Staubach I'm thinking "Win-win, baby!" You really can't make a "wrong" decision, IMO.

 

[kwantam]

If your choices are the best of the best vs. the best of the best, you're really just splitting hairs, no? What if the decision is Daunte Culpepper or Staubach? Or, Drew Brees or Staubach, or Kurt Warner or Staubach?If I have to choose Manning or Staubach I'm thinking "Win-win, baby!" You really can't make a "wrong" decision, IMO.

Point taken. Warner and Brees before Staubach for sure. 42 TD culpepper over Staubach for sure, though the argument could very well be made that 42 TD Culpepper doesn't exist without Randy Moss on his team.Let me say it this way: I think Staubach, in today's NFL, would be top half of the league for sure, probably top 10, but probably not top 5.-=kwantam

 

[PsychoMan]

Again, it doesn't "prove" anything, just another way to look at and compare the results.

Sure it does. Once again, it proves that Peyton Manning > Tom Brady.

 

[Sidewinder16]

If your choices are the best of the best vs. the best of the best, you're really just splitting hairs, no? What if the decision is Daunte Culpepper or Staubach? Or, Drew Brees or Staubach, or Kurt Warner or Staubach?

If I have to choose Manning or Staubach I'm thinking "Win-win, baby!" You really can't make a "wrong" decision, IMO.

Point taken. Warner and Brees before Staubach for sure. 42 TD culpepper over Staubach for sure, though the argument could very well be made that 42 TD Culpepper doesn't exist without Randy Moss on his team.Let me say it this way: I think Staubach, in today's NFL, would be top half of the league for sure, probably top 10, but probably not top 5.

-=kwantam

Interesting. IMO, you're vastly underrating just how really, really good Staubach was. Out of today's QBs (or "this era's QBs", or however one wants to phrase it) I'd personally only take Manning, Brady and Favre over Staubach, and it's not a big margin, either.I think "today" is a little unique, though, in that Manning, Brady and Favre are all-time greats, playing at all-time great levels, at the same time. I wouldn't fault anyone for listing one, or all, in their top 5 all time (including Staubach).

 

[remote controller]

Thanks for this David. I have always felt, and said, if I had to pick a Qb to build a franchise around, I would choose Young. He was very accurate, and didn't make mistakes. He could extend drives with his arm or legs, and he was superior to Montana for probably the last 3 years he was in SF.

 

[kwantam]

Interesting. IMO, you're vastly underrating just how really, really good Staubach was. Out of today's QBs (or "this era's QBs", or however one wants to phrase it) I'd personally only take Manning, Brady and Favre over Staubach, and it's not a big margin, either.I think "today" is a little unique, though, in that Manning, Brady and Favre are all-time greats, playing at all-time great levels, at the same time. I wouldn't fault anyone for listing one, or all, in their top 5 all time (including Staubach).

It's true that we live in an era of vast riches (and abysmal poverty, in some cases) at quarterback, and you are perhaps right that I'm underrating Staubach. I suppose the only way to remedy it is to watch more NFL films Here's to an open mind when I get around to a serious film consideration of the matter,-=kwantam

 

[Sidewinder16]

I suppose the only way to remedy it is to watch more NFL films

Here's to an open mind when I get around to a serious film consideration of the matter,

-=kwantam

Always a good idea. This time of the year NFLN will usually air a bunch of older SBs. If you see either of the DAL/PIT ones from the '70's coming on, I highly recommend rearranging your schedule to watch them. They were epics.

 

[dgreen]

Interesting. IMO, you're vastly underrating just how really, really good Staubach was. Out of today's QBs (or "this era's QBs", or however one wants to phrase it) I'd personally only take Manning, Brady and Favre over Staubach, and it's not a big margin, either.I think "today" is a little unique, though, in that Manning, Brady and Favre are all-time greats, playing at all-time great levels, at the same time. I wouldn't fault anyone for listing one, or all, in their top 5 all time (including Staubach).

It's true that we live in an era of vast riches (and abysmal poverty, in some cases) at quarterback, and you are perhaps right that I'm underrating Staubach. I suppose the only way to remedy it is to watch more NFL films Here's to an open mind when I get around to a serious film consideration of the matter,-=kwantam

"Underrating" is putting it lightly to rank Warner and Brees over Staubach.Staubach retired as the all time leader in passer rating. He led the league in passer rating 4 times in 9 full seasons, including his final two seasons at the ages of 36 and 37. He was All Pro 5 times, including his final four seasons. In 9 seasons as the starter, he led the Cowboys to 6 NFC Championships and 4 SBs, winning 2. (Although they are his two SB losses, you can watch him on the NFL Network since they will be re-airing the two DAL-PIT SBs from the 70s.) Oh, and he could run.

 

[David Yudkin]

If your choices are the best of the best vs. the best of the best, you're really just splitting hairs, no? What if the decision is Daunte Culpepper or Staubach? Or, Drew Brees or Staubach, or Kurt Warner or Staubach?If I have to choose Manning or Staubach I'm thinking "Win-win, baby!" You really can't make a "wrong" decision, IMO.

Point taken. Warner and Brees before Staubach for sure. 42 TD culpepper over Staubach for sure, though the argument could very well be made that 42 TD Culpepper doesn't exist without Randy Moss on his team.Let me say it this way: I think Staubach, in today's NFL, would be top half of the league for sure, probably top 10, but probably not top 5.-=kwantam

I hear what you are saying, but IMO "transporting" players between eras is impossible. In this case, are you accounting for new training and conditioning that might make Staubach better? How about better training and coaching techniques? So to simple drop and drag a player from 1975 to 2008 without taking those things into account make it nearly impossible to hypothesize how well they may have done in a different era.Similarly, if you take someone like Kerry Collins and his recent era skill set and transplanted him onto 1976, he could have been the best in the game at the time (with defensive schemes being much more basic).

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Ken Anderson - 5

One of the biggest Hall omissions. He was fantastic.