New Book Ranks Top 25 QBs All-Time (1 Viewer)

[IanTucker]

1. Brady on this list shows how skewed towards recent memory these lists become. Please. 4 years is just not enough.2. Moon not on this list is ridiculous.3. Young so far down the list is plain wrong.4. I am old enough to have seen Jurgensen and Theisman play and I'll take Jurgensen any day...not even close.5. Nice to see Unitas get his due.

 

[jwvdcw]

What has Favre done the last 8 seasons?  And how many rings does he have?

Now, NE's D taken into account, name me all the great offensive weapons Brady leaned on during his years... the best would be troy brown, A. Smith and then Dillon and last years D. Branch as well.  Not exactly superstars.  I think he is at a good place on this list.

He is the best player on an offense that has won 3 of 4 superbowls.  And they did not win them 9-3, either.

Look up the stats because I am not going to but am going to compare Favre vs. Brady given their respective years. As you pointed out Brady has had very little in the offense department yet has performed greatly. Much like Favre in that he did not have much to work with. They both have had journey men at the important RB/WR positions, Favre circa early years. Given that comparison, rather short and all, if we could put Favre on the NE teams that Brady has been on I will go so far as to say that the results would be no different. Put Brady on the Packer teams that Favre was a part of and I would say the results would have been no different either. The Superbowl vs. Denver was Holmgren saying goodbye to Wolf and Green Bay. I, maybe I speak for others as well, will never like Holmgren for the neglect he showed in preparation for that game. No reason why the Packers should not have won that game.

In conclusion without stats to back it up Brady is as much like Favre with a little more head strength on him but Brady does not take the risks Favre does. A little risk goes a long way as does smarts... they each cancel out each other here. It is scary to think what Brady could do offensively if he had some more weapons. It also would have been scary to think what Favre could have done as well. Before long Brady will be above Manning in any list and may push Favre out of the way which is a lot to say coming from me.

If Brady is even an average QB for the next 10 years...he will rank ahead of Favre. People always forget that the Super Bowl Favre won was when the Packers had the #1 ranked defense in the league. As the defense went...so went the Packers. Favre was unable to capitalize on bringing home more than 1 title when the team had top 5 talent. When Brady had top 5 talent...he won 3 times. Give Brady 10 more years, 220 more TD's, 30,000 more yards (which would be very average 10 year numbers) and 0 more titles...that resume certainly ranks ahead of what Favre has done. 10 years is a long time though. Lots can happen. Favre has his stats in the bank, so he ranks ahead of Brady for now. For now.

great posting...I simply can't understand how people don't think Brady belongs on this list. Personally, hes already in my top 10 and with another SB this year, he could climb into the top 5. He easily could end up at #1 someday.

 

[jwvdcw]

What has Favre done the last 8 seasons?  And how many rings does he have?

Now, NE's D taken into account, name me all the great offensive weapons Brady leaned on during his years... the best would be troy brown, A. Smith and then Dillon and last years D. Branch as well.  Not exactly superstars.  I think he is at a good place on this list.

He is the best player on an offense that has won 3 of 4 superbowls.  And they did not win them 9-3, either.

Look up the stats because I am not going to but am going to compare Favre vs. Brady given their respective years. As you pointed out Brady has had very little in the offense department yet has performed greatly. Much like Favre in that he did not have much to work with. They both have had journey men at the important RB/WR positions, Favre circa early years. Given that comparison, rather short and all, if we could put Favre on the NE teams that Brady has been on I will go so far as to say that the results would be no different. Put Brady on the Packer teams that Favre was a part of and I would say the results would have been no different either. The Superbowl vs. Denver was Holmgren saying goodbye to Wolf and Green Bay. I, maybe I speak for others as well, will never like Holmgren for the neglect he showed in preparation for that game. No reason why the Packers should not have won that game.

In conclusion without stats to back it up Brady is as much like Favre with a little more head strength on him but Brady does not take the risks Favre does. A little risk goes a long way as does smarts... they each cancel out each other here. It is scary to think what Brady could do offensively if he had some more weapons. It also would have been scary to think what Favre could have done as well. Before long Brady will be above Manning in any list and may push Favre out of the way which is a lot to say coming from me.

If Brady is even an average QB for the next 10 years...he will rank ahead of Favre. People always forget that the 1. - Super Bowl Favre won was when the Packers had the #1 ranked defense in the league. As the defense went...so went the Packers. 2. - Favre was unable to capitalize on bringing home more than 1 title when the team had top 5 talent. When Brady had top 5 talent...he won 3 times. Give Brady 10 more years, 220 more TD's, 30,000 more yards (which would be very average 10 year numbers) and 0 more titles...that resume certainly ranks ahead of what Favre has done. 10 years is a long time though. Lots can happen. Favre has his stats in the bank, so he ranks ahead of Brady for now. For now.

1 - Where has Brady's defenses ranked in each of his seasons in the Superbowl?2 - Favre has lead the Packers to the #1 offense last year in the NFC and very high offensive ratings in most years he has been with the Packers. Where has the defense ranked each of those year? Favre cannot carry the defense just like Brady cannot but NE Coaching >> GB Coaching... then and now.

Look up Bellicheck's record without Brady and then compare it to any of the GB coaches without Favre...I think you'll be very surprised.

 

[jwvdcw]

Once Vick's career is over it will be interesting to see the differences in opinion on where he ranks.

By the way, I really like this list.  My favorite ranking is Marino at #6.  I like Aikman's ranking as well.

When Vick's career is over, he will rank somewhere close to Bobby Dougless and Greg Landry.

Vick is one of the most overrated QBs in history. Sure, he brings a different dimension to the offense and has a cannon arm, but he is a very average QB.

Taking his team to the AFC championship in his fourth year was somewhat impressive.

Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien and Doug Williams all won a Super Bowl. That doesn't make them great QBs.

yeah and how were their teams without them? The Falcons were 2-10 the year before without Vick.

Well I do know the Ravens haven't come close to getting back to the Super Bowl since Dilfer left.

Ok, I'll compare for you: The Ravesn went to the 2nd round of the playoffs despite missing their best weapon on offense(J Lewis) the next year without Dilfer; The Falcons were 2-10 without Vick. See the difference? Dilfers was a game manager, Vick is THE reason that the Falcons are so good....without him they are nothing.

 

[packersfan]

Ok, I'll compare for you: The Ravesn went to the 2nd round of the playoffs despite missing their best weapon on offense(J Lewis) the next year without Dilfer; The Falcons were 2-10 without Vick. See the difference? Dilfers was a game manager, Vick is THE reason that the Falcons are so good....without him they are nothing.

Actually, what that says -- and what you continue to ignore -- is what it proves is the Falcons' reserve QBs were absolutely pathetic that season. And by continuing to say Vick is THE reason why the Falcons are so good you continue to ignore the improvement s made by their defense -- a unit which continually is forced to bail out the Falcons due to Vick's shortcomings as a passer.Vick is very important to the Falcons, no doubt about it. But right now he hasn't done anything more than Kordell Stewart and considerably less than guys like Dilfer, Rypien and Doug Williams. As someone who values "winning" above everything else, I'm actually surprised you'd try to argue that Vick is better than guys who have "won" Super Bowl titles.

 

[jwvdcw]

1. Brady on this list shows how skewed towards recent memory these lists

become. Please. 4 years is just not enough.

2. Moon not on this list is ridiculous.

3. Young so far down the list is plain wrong.

4. I am old enough to have seen Jurgensen and Theisman play and I'll take

Jurgensen any day...not even close.

5. Nice to see Unitas get his due.

As another poster already pointed out...where would you rank a QB with 300+ TDs, 40000+ yards, and 3 super bowls? Because if Brady just plays average from here on out and never wins another super bowl, then thats where he'd be. Yes, 4 years is a short time but hes accomplished so much that it odesn't matter.

 

[RTB1]

More on Moon:

http://www.blackcommentator.com/122/122_in...e_asterisk.html

Warren Moon, one of the most prolific passers in NFL history (the most in Professional Football when his CFL statistics are considered) had to begin his career in Canada because of the bigoted notions of many in the NFL during this time. When Moon graduated from Washington, black quarterbacks in the NFL were rare and generally unsuccessful. Willie Thrower, Marlin Briscoe and Joe Gilliam had tried before him. Doug Williams was treated like a trailblazer when he was chosen in the first round by Tampa Bay in 1978. A few teams, particularly in the South, probably feared a fan backlash as well. So Warren was urged to become a running back or a safety. At 6'3", 210-lbs., he had the right size for either one; but he refused. He wanted to be a quarterback and when he was not chosen in the draft (which lasted 12 rounds back then), Warren signed with the Edmonton Eskimos of the CFL. He soon won five league titles. In NFL career passing statistics, Warren Moon is: 3rd in attempted passes, 5th in total touchdown passes, 3rd in total passes completed and 3rd in total yards passing. Where would he stand in the annals of NFL history had he not been discriminated against? We are left only to guess without a single asterisk to guide us.

Currently Moon is in the top 5 in touchdown passes, passes completed and yards, and he missed 6 years!!! Please explain to me why he isn't top 25 just on what he accomplished in the NFL, especially considering the trail he blazed for black QB's today (McNabb, Culpepper, etc). I only mention this since folks bring up Namath's significance for Game 3. I think setting the path for black to finally be QB's at the highest level is important as well.

I think this argument has merit. While some may discount Moon's stats because he played in a "gimmick" offense, that offense was known for turning QBs into hamburger, also, yet Moon was tough enough to run it for many seasons.Remember Chris Miller? All the shots he took in the Run 'n Shoot ended his career due to a series of concussions.

I wouldn't call Moon a "system" QB by any stretch of the word. He would have had success in any offense, but just happened to play in the Run 'n Shoot for the bulk of it. He also had some decent seasons in Minnesota and Seattle, well past his physical prime.

 

[Irish]

It's a good list but I have to dissent a little on Bradshaw. He was surrounded by the most talented team in the history of football. Yes he was gutsy and competitive but he was not a tremendously accurate passer and I think he was a product of being in the right place at the right time. No I'm not saying he was a bum but we're talking about whether he was among the very best ever.

212 career passing TDs and 210 interceptions

51.9 % career passing completion percentage

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BradTe00.htm

Pro Football Reference never had him ranked as the number one or two QB in football in any season nor one of the top ten players in any season (I do not know what critera they use.) Even though he played on the most well known team of the era and was on TV almost every Sunday, he was selected the Pro Bowl "only" 3 times.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/PlunJi00.htm

Jim Plunkett, for example, was drafted by the Patriots when they were the worst team in football. He put up roughly similar numbers and when he later moved to the Raiders, won two Super Bowls. Put him on the 70s Steelers instead of the 70s Patriots, and Bradshaw on the Patriots instead of the Steelers, and do you really think Bradshaw would be on the list?

Bradshaw was a winner period. You have to remember that the Steelers were mostly a running team and their passing game was a down the field big play style so Bradshaw would not have a high completion percentage. If we're gonna discount qbs who played on great teams then that eliminates just about all the great ones.

 

[ICON211]

Troy Aikman and Bob Griese need to be eliminated from the list.

They're confusing team success with QB ability.

Warren Moon is easily better than both of them.

Have you ever seen any of these guys play? You are confusing run and shoot stats with what it means to be a great QB.

You're on a slippery slope with your "run-&-shoot" argument, IMO. How about the WCO, with it's dink & dunk passing that gives QBs high passing %s? How about the more liberlized passing rules instituted over the last 25 years? Should QBs playing under those conditions be penalized?

Can you give me a signature Warren Moon victory? Do you want Warren Moon as the QB of your team in a big game?

 

[IanTucker]

1.  Brady on this list shows how skewed towards recent memory these lists         

      become. Please. 4 years is just not enough.

2.  Moon not on this list is ridiculous.

3.  Young so far down the list is plain wrong.

4.  I am old enough to have seen Jurgensen and Theisman play and I'll take

    Jurgensen any day...not even close.

5.  Nice to see Unitas get his due.

As another poster already pointed out...where would you rank a QB with 300+ TDs, 40000+ yards, and 3 super bowls? Because if Brady just plays average from here on out and never wins another super bowl, then thats where he'd be. Yes, 4 years is a short time but hes accomplished so much that it odesn't matter.

Ranking players as great based on future stats is ridiculous. Brady has a very good chance to be ranked as an all-time great but I'll wait until he actually has a career first.

 

[IanTucker]

1.  Brady on this list shows how skewed towards recent memory these lists         

      become. Please. 4 years is just not enough.

2.  Moon not on this list is ridiculous.

3.  Young so far down the list is plain wrong.

4.  I am old enough to have seen Jurgensen and Theisman play and I'll take

    Jurgensen any day...not even close.

5.  Nice to see Unitas get his due.

As another poster already pointed out...where would you rank a QB with 300+ TDs, 40000+ yards, and 3 super bowls? Because if Brady just plays average from here on out and never wins another super bowl, then thats where he'd be. Yes, 4 years is a short time but hes accomplished so much that it odesn't matter.

Then I'd say he had 3 great years and xx average years and didn't belong on the list. Ranking a player on this list based on future stats is ridiculous. 4 years is just not enough to rank with the all-time best.

 

[Ghost Rider]

No way should Moon be in the top 25. He put up average numbers once he wasn't in the run and shoot. As for the argument that he would have better numbers if not for the CFL, coulda, woulda, shoulda. The fact is he DID play in the CFL. Players are judged on what they did do, not on what they might have done.

Besides his first 3 seasons in the league, where are the average numbers (from 1994 and on)? Are you referring to 1996 and on, when he was almost 40? Passing | Rushing |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

| 1984 hou | 16 | 259 450 57.6 3338 7.4 12 14 | 58 211 1 |

| 1985 hou | 14 | 200 377 53.1 2709 7.2 15 19 | 39 130 0 |

| 1986 hou | 15 | 256 488 52.5 3489 7.1 13 26 | 42 157 2 |

| 1987 hou | 12 | 184 368 50.0 2806 7.6 21 18 | 34 112 3 |

| 1988 hou | 11 | 160 294 54.4 2327 7.9 17 8 | 33 88 5 |

| 1989 hou | 16 | 280 464 60.3 3631 7.8 23 14 | 70 268 4 |

| 1990 hou | 15 | 362 584 62.0 4689 8.0 33 13 | 55 215 2 |

| 1991 hou | 16 | 404 655 61.7 4690 7.2 23 21 | 33 68 2 |

| 1992 hou | 11 | 224 346 64.7 2521 7.3 18 12 | 27 147 1 |

| 1993 hou | 15 | 303 520 58.3 3485 6.7 21 21 | 48 145 1 |

| 1994 min | 15 | 371 601 61.7 4264 7.1 18 19 | 27 55 0 |

| 1995 min | 16 | 377 606 62.2 4228 7.0 33 14 | 33 82 0 |

| 1996 min | 8 | 134 247 54.3 1610 6.5 7 9 | 9 6 0 |

| 1997 sea | 15 | 313 528 59.3 3678 7.0 25 16 | 17 40 1 |

| 1998 sea | 10 | 145 258 56.2 1632 6.3 11 8 | 16 10 0 |

| 1999 kan | 1 | 1 3 33.3 20 6.7 0 0 | 0 0 0 |

| 2000 kan | 2 | 15 34 44.1 208 6.1 1 1 | 2 2 0

He played in the CFL because teams weren't trying to have a starting black QB in 78, not because he wasn't good enough to be in the league. I don't think it's fair to punish a player because of racism. Moon is one of the top passers and 6 yrs of his career don;t count (due to the CFL, where he was setting all kinds of records).

Moon played in a good passing system, but so did other great QB's (i.e. Montana in the West Coast offense). He never had a top notch receiver like Rice (closest he had was Carter when Moon was past his prime) and he never had a top notch RB (like Aikman, Farve, Manning or Elway). To have him off the list when his NFL numbers alone have him in the top 10 is a joke.

The only knock one has on Moon is that he didn't win. Using that criteria, a lot of the players on this list don't belong.

Who said anything about race? I didn't. So, can we please leave it out of this discussion?Moon had some great seasons, but he also threw quite a few INT's those years, too. Three seasons of 20 or more INT's in quite telling.

Like someone else said, name me one big Warren Moon playoff victory.

Moon might not have had a great receiver like Rice, but Houston had a bunch of very good WR's when they were running the run and shoot and they had a running back who could run and catch the ball, so let's not act Moon was playing with a bunch of scrubs.

I am not saying Moon wasn't a very good QB. He was. But, one of the top 25 ever? I don't think so. Of the last twenty years, he isn't as good as Elway, Marino, Montana, Young, Favre or Aikman and when it is all said and done, Brady and Manning will be better, too, so being the 8th or 9th best QB out of a twenty year period doesn't make you top 25 all-time.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Troy Aikman and Bob Griese need to be eliminated from the list.

They're confusing team success with QB ability.

Warren Moon is easily better than both of them.

Have you ever seen any of these guys play? You are confusing run and shoot stats with what it means to be a great QB.

You're on a slippery slope with your "run-&-shoot" argument, IMO. How about the WCO, with it's dink & dunk passing that gives QBs high passing %s? How about the more liberlized passing rules instituted over the last 25 years? Should QBs playing under those conditions be penalized?

Can you give me a signature Warren Moon victory? Do you want Warren Moon as the QB of your team in a big game?

No & maybe.Listen, everyone on this list was/is a fine player. I happen to think Moon was a better player than Griese or Dawson. But Moon never won the "big one" (neither did Jurgesen, Fouts, or Kelly) & that should certainly come into consideration in these rankings. I just don't know how much weight to give stats vs rings vs different eras, etc...

In my mind Moon & Fouts are very similar. I saw all 5 play (although I was young when Namath was in his prime), & I think both were better than Griese, Dawson, maybe Namath.

 

[icehouse]

Troy Aikman and Bob Griese need to be eliminated from the list.

They're confusing team success with QB ability.

Warren Moon is easily better than both of them.

Have you ever seen any of these guys play? You are confusing run and shoot stats with what it means to be a great QB.

You're on a slippery slope with your "run-&-shoot" argument, IMO. How about the WCO, with it's dink & dunk passing that gives QBs high passing %s? How about the more liberlized passing rules instituted over the last 25 years? Should QBs playing under those conditions be penalized?

I don't think he was necessarily pointing to Moon just being a cog in a high powered offense. I think he was mentioning the argument that is always most prevelant in these discussions...stats vs. intangibles. Moon certainly has the stats...but he never really won anything (in the NFL). Aikman won lots...but never really put up the stats. So to make a distinction between the two, you really have to weigh those two factors and then trust what your eyes and what the 'experts' (other NFL players and coaches) have to say.

Oh, the Aikman intangibles. Would that be having the Hall of Fame WR (Irvin), the all-time leading rusher (Smith), or dominant talent on one team before free agency arrived (every Cowboy title team)?

 

[jonessed]

I think you should flip-flop Aikman and Fouts

 

[icehouse]

No way should Moon be in the top 25.  He put up average numbers once he wasn't in the run and shoot.  As for the argument that he would have better numbers if not for the CFL, coulda, woulda, shoulda.  The fact is he DID play in the CFL.  Players are judged on what they did do, not on what they might have done.

Besides his first 3 seasons in the league, where are the average numbers (from 1994 and on)? Are you referring to 1996 and on, when he was almost 40? Passing | Rushing |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |

+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

| 1984 hou | 16 | 259 450 57.6 3338 7.4 12 14 | 58 211 1 |

| 1985 hou | 14 | 200 377 53.1 2709 7.2 15 19 | 39 130 0 |

| 1986 hou | 15 | 256 488 52.5 3489 7.1 13 26 | 42 157 2 |

| 1987 hou | 12 | 184 368 50.0 2806 7.6 21 18 | 34 112 3 |

| 1988 hou | 11 | 160 294 54.4 2327 7.9 17 8 | 33 88 5 |

| 1989 hou | 16 | 280 464 60.3 3631 7.8 23 14 | 70 268 4 |

| 1990 hou | 15 | 362 584 62.0 4689 8.0 33 13 | 55 215 2 |

| 1991 hou | 16 | 404 655 61.7 4690 7.2 23 21 | 33 68 2 |

| 1992 hou | 11 | 224 346 64.7 2521 7.3 18 12 | 27 147 1 |

| 1993 hou | 15 | 303 520 58.3 3485 6.7 21 21 | 48 145 1 |

| 1994 min | 15 | 371 601 61.7 4264 7.1 18 19 | 27 55 0 |

| 1995 min | 16 | 377 606 62.2 4228 7.0 33 14 | 33 82 0 |

| 1996 min | 8 | 134 247 54.3 1610 6.5 7 9 | 9 6 0 |

| 1997 sea | 15 | 313 528 59.3 3678 7.0 25 16 | 17 40 1 |

| 1998 sea | 10 | 145 258 56.2 1632 6.3 11 8 | 16 10 0 |

| 1999 kan | 1 | 1 3 33.3 20 6.7 0 0 | 0 0 0 |

| 2000 kan | 2 | 15 34 44.1 208 6.1 1 1 | 2 2 0

He played in the CFL because teams weren't trying to have a starting black QB in 78, not because he wasn't good enough to be in the league. I don't think it's fair to punish a player because of racism. Moon is one of the top passers and 6 yrs of his career don;t count (due to the CFL, where he was setting all kinds of records).

Moon played in a good passing system, but so did other great QB's (i.e. Montana in the West Coast offense). He never had a top notch receiver like Rice (closest he had was Carter when Moon was past his prime) and he never had a top notch RB (like Aikman, Farve, Manning or Elway). To have him off the list when his NFL numbers alone have him in the top 10 is a joke.

The only knock one has on Moon is that he didn't win. Using that criteria, a lot of the players on this list don't belong.

Who said anything about race? I didn't. So, can we please leave it out of this discussion?Moon had some great seasons, but he also threw quite a few INT's those years, too. Three seasons of 20 or more INT's in quite telling.

Like someone else said, name me one big Warren Moon playoff victory.

Moon might not have had a great receiver like Rice, but Houston had a bunch of very good WR's when they were running the run and shoot and they had a running back who could run and catch the ball, so let's not act Moon was playing with a bunch of scrubs.

I am not saying Moon wasn't a very good QB. He was. But, one of the top 25 ever? I don't think so. Of the last twenty years, he isn't as good as Elway, Marino, Montana, Young, Favre or Aikman and when it is all said and done, Brady and Manning will be better, too, so being the 8th or 9th best QB out of a twenty year period doesn't make you top 25 all-time.

You didn't mention race. However, someone mentioned the 6 years missed due to the CFL. He missed 6 years due to race. He is top 5 in everything without those 6 years....Moon doesn't have a big playoff victory. Football is a team sport, and the Oilers were never a championship TEAM. However, Manning is #15 on this list. Does he have a big playoff victory? It's not like he hasn't had a HOF WR and damn good RB (two things Moon never had).

Moon wasn't playing with scrubs, but the offensive talent surrounding him and some of his counterparts is obvious. I don't know the numbers, but I wouldn't be suprised to find another 2-3 QB's with his numbers that played without a HOF WR/RB. His receivers were average (midgets built for the system) and he never had a great RB.

Look at every QB you named and notice they all had teams when they won (solid D, running game and WR). I don't know if Marino had a HOF WR when he went to the Super Bowl, but every other QB had one (well, Sharpe was the best TE with Elway).

I didn't say Moon was the greatest QB ever, but to have him off the list when he is in the top 5 in damn near every passing category is silly.