Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Thought this would make for a good Friday discussion.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Rank the QBs, all time (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chase Stuart
- Start date
Zoomanji
Footballguy
Aikman, Bradshaw, Namath
That was painful
Aikman was the most important of these 3 QBs to the success of his team.
Bradshaw was as well but there was much less reliance on the passing game on his teams.
Namath was average at best but played in a media center and made an outrageous remark that somehow came true.
That was painful
Aikman was the most important of these 3 QBs to the success of his team.
Bradshaw was as well but there was much less reliance on the passing game on his teams.
Namath was average at best but played in a media center and made an outrageous remark that somehow came true.
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Aikman > Bradshaw >>>>> Namath
Last edited by a moderator:
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
I like the discussion because you have Qb's representing the decades of the 60's, 70's and primarily the 90's. All 3 Qb's are Hall of Famers and different football eras, I see nothing wrong with it.My vote was Bradshaw, Aikman, and Namath. Although I think Aikman was a more accurate passer than Bradshaw, he was just such a clutch QB, tough as nails and a little more mobile than Aikman in the pocket. Namath had a great arm and during his prime, he could match game for game vs. Aikman or Bradshaw, he didn't have the longevity and the consistentcy the other two guys showed.The other advantage Bradshaw has is that he has 4 Super Bowl Rings over Aikman's 3. If Dallas didn't fall behind 21-0 in the quest for their 3 peat in SF early in the 1st quarter and if Franco Harris doesn't pick the ball up for the Emaculate Reception, it would be 4 to 3 in Rings in favor of Aikman.........but it's not.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
That's some nice, unbiased posting, IWBACB.
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
I have to disagree somewhat in a couple things.Troy Aikman is probably my favorite Dallas Cowboy. I also believe if he was on a team where they had to run and gun, he would have put up some very impressive stats, but that's not who Dallas was. So, my disagreement comes in that Aikman wasn't the most important, it was their offensive line. They just beat you down for 3 quarters and then come the 4th quarter they just ran over you.You say on Bradshaw's team, there was less reliance on the passing game, you sure you don't mean Aikman's? They have the all time running back for yards on that team. No team ran the ball better.......ever.Namath was not average at best. You don't get talked about on message boards 40 years later for being average.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zoomanji
Footballguy
Namath had a career passer rating of 65.5. Granted it was the 60s before the passing had truly evolved but his numbers aren't great and I have read many debates where if the Jets hadn't won or even been in the SB, he would have never sniffed the HOF. The argument and stats are compelling to me. Ken Stabler has comparable numbers that are arguably better and he's never getting into the HOF. Namath StablerMy comparison between Bradshaw and Aikman is that Pitt relied more on the run game game than Dallas did. Yes, both were equally effective but Dallas played in an era where running was not enough to get to and win a SB. The QB had to be able to take the pressure off the running game to a greater degree than in the 70s.
Dallas had a good O-line but doesn't that aldo give the QB time to find WRs? Both the QB and RB can benefit from good O-lines. Unless you are saying that a good O-line can make an average RB and QB look like HOFers?
ETA- When I said Aikman was more important, I meant more important than the other 2 QBs, not other players on the team.
Last edited by a moderator:
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
Well, I don't want to seem overbearing, there's nothing worse than a guy trying to dominate a thread and suffocate other quality ideas so I appreciate you posting your thoughts on the topic. I guess I'll just say that I do disagree that Pittsburgh relied more on the run than Dallas did. Also, Dallas had a great O-line, probably one of the top 3 of all time. And on a lighter note.....yes I've had to argue my butt off about how great offensive lines make average RB's hall of famers. Many of anti Emmitt Smith posters have taken that stance although I never saw it that way.You've heard the stories haven't you......the ones where if Barry Sanders would have played on those early 90's Cowboys teams that he would have rushed for 2500 yards etc....Namath had a career passer rating of 65.5. Granted it was the 60s before the passing had truly evolved but his numbers aren't great and I have read many debates where if the Jets hadn't won or even been in the SB, he would have never sniffed the HOF. The argument and stats are compelling to me. Ken Stabler has comparable numbers that are arguably better and he's never getting into the HOF. Namath StablerMy comparison between Bradshaw and Aikman is that Pitt relied more on the run game game than Dallas did. Yes, both were equally effective but Dallas played in an era where running was not enough to get to and win a SB. The QB had to be able to take the pressure off the running game to a greater degree than in the 70s.
Dallas had a good O-line but doesn't that aldo give the QB time to find WRs? Both the QB and RB can benefit from good O-lines. Unless you are saying that a good O-line can make an average RB and QB look like HOFers?
ETA- When I said Aikman was more important, I meant more important than the other 2 QBs, not other players on the team.
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
*smiles*I knew I had it in mean, just took a lot of deep breathsThat's some nice, unbiased posting, IWBACB.
burd
Footballguy
interesting topic because all 3 QBs have very recognizable names, but when you take the time to think about it, all 3 are hyped beyond their stats or contributions to their team.
i'd definitely put Aikman first. Compared to the other 2, Aikman played in an era when the passing game held more prominance and was more complicated. Not to take away from Bradshaw and Namath, but i'd make the comparison that the offense's they played in were more "college" in that their offenses were less complex.
The knock on Namath was that he was an average QB. But i believe he was hampered his entire career by knee problems. Bradshaw I've heard, suffered shoulder/arm problems toward the end of his career. So i think more people remember a healthy and competant Bradshaw while Namath is remembered as being a tough and gritty QB who had to struggle and bust his ars to just get by.
i'd definitely put Aikman first. Compared to the other 2, Aikman played in an era when the passing game held more prominance and was more complicated. Not to take away from Bradshaw and Namath, but i'd make the comparison that the offense's they played in were more "college" in that their offenses were less complex.
The knock on Namath was that he was an average QB. But i believe he was hampered his entire career by knee problems. Bradshaw I've heard, suffered shoulder/arm problems toward the end of his career. So i think more people remember a healthy and competant Bradshaw while Namath is remembered as being a tough and gritty QB who had to struggle and bust his ars to just get by.
Captain Quinoa
Footballguy
The Steelers lost to Miami in the AFCCG after the Immaculate Reception so Bradshaw would still have 4.Bradshaw/Aikman is very close.Namath wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy behind.
Zoomanji
Footballguy
Leave it to a Cowboys fan to refuse a rare compliment from an Eagles fan
1- To finish this point, look at the run/pass ratios of Dallas in the 90s and Pitt in the 70s and tell me again how Dallas ran the ball more than Pitt.2- Emmit was so absurdly average its not even funny. Eric Rhett would have been a HOFer on that team with that O-line. Never mind that Barry would have had 3000 yard seasons.BTW- 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Fantasy points across their careers . . .
NAMATH 65-77
1 Fran Tarkenton 2878.20
2 John Hadl 2229.30
3 Roman Gabriel 2135.95
4 Joe Namath 1911.15
5 Jim Hart 1735.05
6 Bob Griese 1657.95
7 John Brodie 1618.30
8 Len Dawson 1584.00
9 Sonny Jurgensen 1561.95
10 Norm Snead 1507.75
BRADSHAW 70-83
1 Terry Bradshaw 2455.15
2 Ken Anderson 2445.10
3 Dan Fouts 2182.60
4 Ken Stabler 1964.35
5 Jim Hart 1955.95
6 Joe Ferguson 1950.15
7 Roger Staubach 1949.35
8 Fran Tarkenton 1857.35
9 Archie Manning 1813.80
10 Brian Sipe 1794.85
AIKMAN 89-00
1 Brett Favre 2814.60
2 Steve Young 2712.55
3 John Elway 2676.15
4 Dan Marino 2668.05
5 Warren Moon 2606.60
6 Vinny Testaverde 2451.50
7 Troy Aikman 2321.70
8 Jim Harbaugh 2054.80
9 Drew Bledsoe 2048.35
10 Jim Kelly 1977.10
These lists tell us something, but I caution that they are somewhat misleading, as peers could easily have put up better numbers but did not play in the same exact timespan as these players.
I'd probably go Bradshaw-Aikman-Namath. The fact that Vinny Testaverde scored more fantasy points than Aikman doesn't help Troy's cause (nor does just beating out Jim Harbaugh).
NAMATH 65-77
1 Fran Tarkenton 2878.20
2 John Hadl 2229.30
3 Roman Gabriel 2135.95
4 Joe Namath 1911.15
5 Jim Hart 1735.05
6 Bob Griese 1657.95
7 John Brodie 1618.30
8 Len Dawson 1584.00
9 Sonny Jurgensen 1561.95
10 Norm Snead 1507.75
BRADSHAW 70-83
1 Terry Bradshaw 2455.15
2 Ken Anderson 2445.10
3 Dan Fouts 2182.60
4 Ken Stabler 1964.35
5 Jim Hart 1955.95
6 Joe Ferguson 1950.15
7 Roger Staubach 1949.35
8 Fran Tarkenton 1857.35
9 Archie Manning 1813.80
10 Brian Sipe 1794.85
AIKMAN 89-00
1 Brett Favre 2814.60
2 Steve Young 2712.55
3 John Elway 2676.15
4 Dan Marino 2668.05
5 Warren Moon 2606.60
6 Vinny Testaverde 2451.50
7 Troy Aikman 2321.70
8 Jim Harbaugh 2054.80
9 Drew Bledsoe 2048.35
10 Jim Kelly 1977.10
These lists tell us something, but I caution that they are somewhat misleading, as peers could easily have put up better numbers but did not play in the same exact timespan as these players.
I'd probably go Bradshaw-Aikman-Namath. The fact that Vinny Testaverde scored more fantasy points than Aikman doesn't help Troy's cause (nor does just beating out Jim Harbaugh).
Phurfur
Footballguy
I disagree!Emmitt Smith was the heart of the Cowboy Era. They were a run first team. Did you know Aikman threw for over 20 TDs only once (23) You obviously never saw Namath play. He does not belong with the other 2 and is the best QB of the three.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I have seen Namath play (even in person) and have a hard time with this one. Namath had basically 6 strong years and 6 to quickly forget about. He was a force early on (his first 5 seasons) and then basically had one more good year of 7 he played. In any era, a 173 to 220 TD to INT ratio is not very good.
CommuterMan
Footballguy
Namath had the best TV commercials....
followed by Aikman
Bradshaw is a distant third
followed by Aikman
Bradshaw is a distant third
burd
Footballguy
very interesting stats. what i take from this is that there were very few truly great QBs back in the day. I mean, yeah Aikman doesn't make the top 5, but look who he's behind ... Favre, Young, Elway, Marino. I don't think anyone would be surprised that Troy trails these players. Bradshaw and Namath played in eras where there were few superstar QBs. Bradshaw is #1, but the level of talent he beat out doesn't compare to Favre, Elway, Marino etc. I'm really surprised that Namath doens't rank higher considering the lack of QB talent in his era. Sure he wasn't the most polished player and he did throw a ton of INTs, but he should've done better w/ his talent. I still say Aikman, Bradshaw, Namath. You can't fault Aikman for not playing as well as Favre etc.Going back even further ... where would Unitas rank?
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I don't think it says that at all. The game has simply changed.For example, consider the following rule change. The NFL decides to allow only 10 defensive players on the field. Offensive numbers would fly through the roof. Some QBs would throw for 75 or 80 TDs in a season, and every QB would have a QB Rating over 100. The numbers of today's QBs would look pretty pedestrian.
Well, while not as drastic, that's pretty much what happened in the NFL since the '60s. The number of rules changes -- promoting pass blocking, promoting route running -- have made passing much, much easier. There weren't a lack of great QBs in the '60s and '70s, they just didn't have great numbers.
Fran Tarkenton was incredible. We know about Unitas. Staubach was as elite as it gets. Len Dawson was every bit the QB that Favre was. Norm Van Brocklin, Sonny Jurgenson, Otto Graham and Bart Starr were elite Qbs. Roman Gabriel, John Hadl and Jim Hart were legitimate studs. And before them, Tittle and Luckman were stars, too. It's just that their raw numbers now don't look good, but after you adjust them for context -- and I've done so -- you see how terrific they really were.
stevegamer
Footballguy
I think Namath is the worst of the 3, and it's a pretty commonly held belief.
For Aikman vs Bradshaw, Aikman is helped a lot statistically by his era. It was much easier to throw the ball when he played. I don't think Aikman was even the best Cowboy QB ever - I'd go with Staubach, and I think both Bradshaw & Aikman are overrated due to rings. I generally think of Bradshaw & Staubach as being of similar quality, so I'd go Bradshaw > Aikman.
For Aikman vs Bradshaw, Aikman is helped a lot statistically by his era. It was much easier to throw the ball when he played. I don't think Aikman was even the best Cowboy QB ever - I'd go with Staubach, and I think both Bradshaw & Aikman are overrated due to rings. I generally think of Bradshaw & Staubach as being of similar quality, so I'd go Bradshaw > Aikman.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I think Staubach is a solid two or three tiers above all three of these QBs.
Frenchy Fuqua
Footballguy
This is how most will remember them:Bradshaw 14-5 in the playoffs, 4-0 in SB including 2-0 vs. Staubach.
Staubach 12-7 in the playoffs, 2-2 in SB including 0-2 vs. Bradshaw.
Last edited by a moderator:
dirty_martini
Footballguy
It seems to be a common misconception that Aikman's stats are far better than Bradshaw's. I don't think so. If you take the Era's into account then Terry clearly trumps Troy.
Aikman 165 games, 32,942 yards, 165 TD, 141 INT, 7.0 y/a and rating of 81.6
Bradshaw 168 games, 27,989 yards, 212 TD, 210 Int, 7.2 y/a and rating of 70.9
Terry's stats also tell an interesting story. The rule changes between 1977 and 1978 allowed offensive lineman to put their hands on defenders and instituted the 5-yard chuck rule (the Mel Blount Rule) - starting the passing era in pro football. Starting in 78 - Terry's stats skyrocketed. His TD totals from 78-81 are 28, 26, 24 and 22 and through 9 games in 1982 he had 17 which projects out to about 30 over a full season. You project those stats out over his 13-14 year career and they will stack up with any modern era QB.
But the big difference to me is the play in the big games. Neither Troy or Terry were slouches but I'm not sure Pittsburgh wins more than 1 Super Bowl if not for Terry's play. (IX against the Vikings.) He threw a 4th quarter TD in each of his four Super Bowls. And his ratings in the big game were 108, 122.5, 119.2 and 101.9
It's clearly Bradshaw over Aikman in my book.
Aikman 165 games, 32,942 yards, 165 TD, 141 INT, 7.0 y/a and rating of 81.6
Bradshaw 168 games, 27,989 yards, 212 TD, 210 Int, 7.2 y/a and rating of 70.9
Terry's stats also tell an interesting story. The rule changes between 1977 and 1978 allowed offensive lineman to put their hands on defenders and instituted the 5-yard chuck rule (the Mel Blount Rule) - starting the passing era in pro football. Starting in 78 - Terry's stats skyrocketed. His TD totals from 78-81 are 28, 26, 24 and 22 and through 9 games in 1982 he had 17 which projects out to about 30 over a full season. You project those stats out over his 13-14 year career and they will stack up with any modern era QB.
But the big difference to me is the play in the big games. Neither Troy or Terry were slouches but I'm not sure Pittsburgh wins more than 1 Super Bowl if not for Terry's play. (IX against the Vikings.) He threw a 4th quarter TD in each of his four Super Bowls. And his ratings in the big game were 108, 122.5, 119.2 and 101.9
It's clearly Bradshaw over Aikman in my book.
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy Herron
Footballguy
Whew-
A lot of stuff to cover here.
First of all, I've been a Cowboys fan since Super Bowl V, when they lost to the Colts but had no business doing so (why else would Chuck Howley have won the MVP?). It was an ugly game full of turnovers and a lousy last second 32-yard field goal by Jim O'Brien. So I fairly well know the history behind all three of these quarterbacks.
Chase- as much as I loved Staubach, who threw so many passes to my childhood hero Drew Pearson, he was no Aikman. He'll tell you so himself. He has said repeatedly that he was never the QB Aikman was. Call him modest, but the truth remains. Sticking to Dallas alumni, Dan Reeves (among many others) say Aikman was the most accurate passer they have ever seen. "That" coming from a Staubach teammate. Staubach never had near the zing on the ball that Aikman had. No, Aikman didn't really "light it up" at any point in his career, but when the chips were down he came through. To this day, he holds the best postseason completion percentage (over 70%) in NFL history. That's the guy I want for the big games. Yes, the Cowboys had a big-time offense in the 90's, but Aikman was still the field general and he delivered.
Aikman goes first.
Then we have Bradshaw. I'll be honest here. The Steelers were probably the only team I hated or despised more than the Redskins in the 70's. Those two Super Bowl losses killed me. I've always viewed Bradshaw as being in the right place at the right time. Much like the Cowboys in the 90's, stars dominated their roster but they also had that "Steel Curtain" defense. My take is, had it not been for the acrobatic ability of Lynn Swann to catch so many ill throws from Bradshaw, things may have been different in Pittsburgh. Bradshaw was more of a gunslinger, and his team enabled him to be as such. He wasn't so much a precision passer.
Joe Namath- It's all about the legs, isn't it? Whether you want to talk about his bad knees or the panty hose commercials in his Jets jersey. "Broadway Joe" was known more for his personality than his on-field premise. He played in New York for a team that was beloved as much as the Yankees are today (or ever were). Had he not delivered on his Super Bowl guarantee, he wouldn't be in this discussion.
A lot of stuff to cover here.
First of all, I've been a Cowboys fan since Super Bowl V, when they lost to the Colts but had no business doing so (why else would Chuck Howley have won the MVP?). It was an ugly game full of turnovers and a lousy last second 32-yard field goal by Jim O'Brien. So I fairly well know the history behind all three of these quarterbacks.
Chase- as much as I loved Staubach, who threw so many passes to my childhood hero Drew Pearson, he was no Aikman. He'll tell you so himself. He has said repeatedly that he was never the QB Aikman was. Call him modest, but the truth remains. Sticking to Dallas alumni, Dan Reeves (among many others) say Aikman was the most accurate passer they have ever seen. "That" coming from a Staubach teammate. Staubach never had near the zing on the ball that Aikman had. No, Aikman didn't really "light it up" at any point in his career, but when the chips were down he came through. To this day, he holds the best postseason completion percentage (over 70%) in NFL history. That's the guy I want for the big games. Yes, the Cowboys had a big-time offense in the 90's, but Aikman was still the field general and he delivered.
Aikman goes first.
Then we have Bradshaw. I'll be honest here. The Steelers were probably the only team I hated or despised more than the Redskins in the 70's. Those two Super Bowl losses killed me. I've always viewed Bradshaw as being in the right place at the right time. Much like the Cowboys in the 90's, stars dominated their roster but they also had that "Steel Curtain" defense. My take is, had it not been for the acrobatic ability of Lynn Swann to catch so many ill throws from Bradshaw, things may have been different in Pittsburgh. Bradshaw was more of a gunslinger, and his team enabled him to be as such. He wasn't so much a precision passer.
Joe Namath- It's all about the legs, isn't it? Whether you want to talk about his bad knees or the panty hose commercials in his Jets jersey. "Broadway Joe" was known more for his personality than his on-field premise. He played in New York for a team that was beloved as much as the Yankees are today (or ever were). Had he not delivered on his Super Bowl guarantee, he wouldn't be in this discussion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I've recently been working on a ranking of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, which is was prompted the thread. There are so many statistics for QBs, and comparing across eras is so subjective, and the amount of success for a QB's stats that a QB deserves is so controversial, that I caution even continuing this post. As many know, it's pretty easy to make statistics say what you want, and those who don't like the results will have good reason to complain. After compiling my rankings, I've got Namath first, Aikman second, and Bradshaw third.
I'll beat you guys to the punch and say this is ridiculous, and I'm a homer. It's not really feasible for me to convince you that I didn't concoct some formula to make Namath look great, but I didn't. So while I caution to go into detail -- because my system is pretty complicated -- hey, why not give it a try.
First, I ignored all post-season stats. Flame away.
Second, I ignored the quality of the surrounding talent for a QB, and just used their regular season stats. Continue to flame away.
Over here I describe my methodology. Basically, I had to come up with three things:
1) One stat to rank every QB;
2) One way to compare every QB to the modern era;
3) One way to combine every season of a QB into a career rating.
None of those are without controversy. But let me first get in to how it's even possible that Namath could be ahead of Aikman, statistically.
Take a look at the AFL in 1967, outside of Joe Namath. Here are the cumulative totals of all QBs:
1579/3363; 21,779; 163 TD /199 INT
You should look at that and just say wow. That's a 47% completion rate. If you look at adjusted yards per attempt -- which is roughly the stat I chose to use -- the non-Namath AFL QBs averaged 4.30 adjusted yards per pass attempt. Namath, in 1967, averaged 6.12 AY/A. That's a pretty big increase.
Compare that to the NFL in 1993. Outside of Aikman, QBs put up the following numbers:
8069/13992; 93,108; 498 TD/ 459 INT
That's a 58% completion rate -- a pretty dramatic jump. Non-Aikman QBs averaged 5.53 AY/A in 1993, another huge jump. Aikman had a terrific year, averaging 7.60 AY/A. While 7.60 looks way better than 6.12, Aikman averaged 2.07 AY/A more than the league average, and Namath averaged 1.82 AY/A over the league average. That looks a lot closer than at first blush, and when you factor in Namath's 100 more attempts, I think his 1967 becomes slightly more impressive than Aikman's 1993. Aikman added 811 passing yards above average (2.07 * 392 attempts) and Namath added 897 yards above average (1.82 * 491 attempts).
Now I made the formula a bit more complicated (I've included sacks data, which helps Namath a bit, and helps Aikman even more), and I still haven't discussed fully accounting for era and calculating career totals from season totals. But that's a pretty lengthy start, so maybe I should just stop for now. Because if you won't see that Namath's 1967 season was statistically more impressive than Aikman's 1993 season, it's going to be pretty hard for me to convince you of much else.
(For the record, in my system, Bradshaw's best passing year was 1978. He averaged 6.24 AY/A, and the non-Bradshaw QBs in the league averaged 4.64 AY/A. So he was 1.6 AY/A above average, and for 368 passes, making him 588 yards above average.)
I'll beat you guys to the punch and say this is ridiculous, and I'm a homer. It's not really feasible for me to convince you that I didn't concoct some formula to make Namath look great, but I didn't. So while I caution to go into detail -- because my system is pretty complicated -- hey, why not give it a try.
First, I ignored all post-season stats. Flame away.
Second, I ignored the quality of the surrounding talent for a QB, and just used their regular season stats. Continue to flame away.
Over here I describe my methodology. Basically, I had to come up with three things:
1) One stat to rank every QB;
2) One way to compare every QB to the modern era;
3) One way to combine every season of a QB into a career rating.
None of those are without controversy. But let me first get in to how it's even possible that Namath could be ahead of Aikman, statistically.
Take a look at the AFL in 1967, outside of Joe Namath. Here are the cumulative totals of all QBs:
1579/3363; 21,779; 163 TD /199 INT
You should look at that and just say wow. That's a 47% completion rate. If you look at adjusted yards per attempt -- which is roughly the stat I chose to use -- the non-Namath AFL QBs averaged 4.30 adjusted yards per pass attempt. Namath, in 1967, averaged 6.12 AY/A. That's a pretty big increase.
Compare that to the NFL in 1993. Outside of Aikman, QBs put up the following numbers:
8069/13992; 93,108; 498 TD/ 459 INT
That's a 58% completion rate -- a pretty dramatic jump. Non-Aikman QBs averaged 5.53 AY/A in 1993, another huge jump. Aikman had a terrific year, averaging 7.60 AY/A. While 7.60 looks way better than 6.12, Aikman averaged 2.07 AY/A more than the league average, and Namath averaged 1.82 AY/A over the league average. That looks a lot closer than at first blush, and when you factor in Namath's 100 more attempts, I think his 1967 becomes slightly more impressive than Aikman's 1993. Aikman added 811 passing yards above average (2.07 * 392 attempts) and Namath added 897 yards above average (1.82 * 491 attempts).
Now I made the formula a bit more complicated (I've included sacks data, which helps Namath a bit, and helps Aikman even more), and I still haven't discussed fully accounting for era and calculating career totals from season totals. But that's a pretty lengthy start, so maybe I should just stop for now. Because if you won't see that Namath's 1967 season was statistically more impressive than Aikman's 1993 season, it's going to be pretty hard for me to convince you of much else.
(For the record, in my system, Bradshaw's best passing year was 1978. He averaged 6.24 AY/A, and the non-Bradshaw QBs in the league averaged 4.64 AY/A. So he was 1.6 AY/A above average, and for 368 passes, making him 588 yards above average.)
dirty_martini
Footballguy
If I'm reading this right, you based your judgements on the QB's best single season? That's interesting but that's hardly a gauge for the best QB ever. In that respect, Timmy Smith is the best RB ever to play in a super bowl. And it's just rigging things to keep the afl and nfl stats separate.
I don't see how Montana is not in this discussion either ...
I think both Bradshaw and Namath are underrated as passers. I think there's too much backlash against them from all of the love they get for being "winners", and as a result, they don't get their due for the fact that they really were great QBs, just in terms of chucking the ball.
Thinking about it, I'd rank it Bradshaw/Aikman/Namath, but I don't have any problem with any other order. I think the three are all a lot closer than people think.
Thinking about it, I'd rank it Bradshaw/Aikman/Namath, but I don't have any problem with any other order. I think the three are all a lot closer than people think.
Aikman/Bradshaw/Namath
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Agreed.I think Montana suffers from this a bit, too. He's remembered as a winner by so many people, that he doesn't get his due for the fact that he put up some incredible regular season numbers. In my opinion, his regular season stats are more impressive than someone like Favre's stats, and he ranks ahead of him in my system.Namath ranks 30th, Aikman 38th, and Bradshaw 41st. Those feel about right to me. But there's a definite bias against QBs from earlier eras, and also against Qbs that were great at avoiding sacks. Namath and Aikman were both very, very good at avoiding sacks, and they deserve some credit for that. But realizing the era that Namath and Bradshaw played in is pretty fundamental to comparing them to modern QBs.SSOG said:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Chase,
I know it's your party and you can do whatever you want with it, but does your system take into account at all how weel the QBs did in terms of winning games or championships?
Does your list resemble the following (or is it really adjusted by era)?
Here are the only qualifying QBs with a career YPA of 7.00 or better (Minimum 3000 attempts):
1 Steve Young 7.98
2 Johnny Unitas 7.71
3 Peyton Manning 7.70
4 Len Dawson 7.68
5 Dan Fouts 7.68
6 Trent Green 7.62
7 Sonny Jurgensen 7.56
8 Joe Montana 7.52
9 Steve Grogan 7.48
10 Lynn Dickey 7.46
11 Jim Kelly 7.42
12 Craig Morton 7.37
13 Ken Stabler 7.37
14 Joe Namath 7.35
15 Dan Marino 7.34
16 Ken Anderson 7.34
17 Bob Griese 7.32
18 Boomer Esiason 7.29
19 Fran Tarkenton 7.27
20 Tom Brady 7.24
21 Warren Moon 7.23
22 Steve Beuerlein 7.23
23 Neil Lomax 7.22
24 Phil Simms 7.20
25 Charley Johnson 7.20
26 Dave Krieg 7.18
27 Terry Bradshaw 7.17
28 John Hadl 7.15
29 Matt Hasselbeck 7.12
30 Chris Chandler 7.11
31 John Elway 7.10
32 Jim Everett 7.08
33 Norm Snead 7.07
34 John Brodie 7.04
35 Brett Favre 7.04
36 Drew Brees 7.02
37 Joe Theismann 7.00
I know it's your party and you can do whatever you want with it, but does your system take into account at all how weel the QBs did in terms of winning games or championships?
Does your list resemble the following (or is it really adjusted by era)?
Here are the only qualifying QBs with a career YPA of 7.00 or better (Minimum 3000 attempts):
1 Steve Young 7.98
2 Johnny Unitas 7.71
3 Peyton Manning 7.70
4 Len Dawson 7.68
5 Dan Fouts 7.68
6 Trent Green 7.62
7 Sonny Jurgensen 7.56
8 Joe Montana 7.52
9 Steve Grogan 7.48
10 Lynn Dickey 7.46
11 Jim Kelly 7.42
12 Craig Morton 7.37
13 Ken Stabler 7.37
14 Joe Namath 7.35
15 Dan Marino 7.34
16 Ken Anderson 7.34
17 Bob Griese 7.32
18 Boomer Esiason 7.29
19 Fran Tarkenton 7.27
20 Tom Brady 7.24
21 Warren Moon 7.23
22 Steve Beuerlein 7.23
23 Neil Lomax 7.22
24 Phil Simms 7.20
25 Charley Johnson 7.20
26 Dave Krieg 7.18
27 Terry Bradshaw 7.17
28 John Hadl 7.15
29 Matt Hasselbeck 7.12
30 Chris Chandler 7.11
31 John Elway 7.10
32 Jim Everett 7.08
33 Norm Snead 7.07
34 John Brodie 7.04
35 Brett Favre 7.04
36 Drew Brees 7.02
37 Joe Theismann 7.00
I voted Bradshaw/Aikman/Namath.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
My list is really adjusted by era. Every single season by every QB is adjusted for era, which I think is pretty relevant. That's why the highest ranking Bears QB on my list, by a mile, is Sid Luckman.Post-season data has not been incorporated yet.
Seems that a multi-dimensional QB like Elway, McNabb, etc. would be underrated by this system.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I've actually got a rushing bonus built in to the system, but I discarded it for the purpose of this exercise, since neither of the three QBs were very effective rushers. But that's a good observation. McNabb moves up from 50th best QB of all time to 38th best, once you include his rushing stats. Elway sees a similar boost. Namath, Bradshaw and Aikman each drop just a couple of spots in the rankings once you include rushing data.
Personally I'd rank them Namath, Bradshaw, Aikman.
Namath gets bonus points for his influence in the NFL's early mainstream years. The Colts-Jets game is still BY FAR the greatest upset in pro sports history and as a previous poster noted, we are still talking about Namath some 40 years later.
Bradshaw and Aikman are pretty similar IMO. Bradshaw has more ings so that's kinda my tie breaker. Personally, I never thought Aikman was ever one of the 5 best QB's in the NFL at any point in his career and I think an argument could be made that neither was Bradshaw. They both were on powerhouse teams but I think there were at least a half dozen QB's who could have led those teams to titles those same years.
Those Dallas teams could have had a guy like Boomer Esiason at QB(good QB but not as highly regarded as Aikman) and they still would have won 3 super bowls.
Those Pittsburgh teams could have had a guy like Kenny Anderson and still won 4 super bowls.
Namath was just a more important player IMO. I just don't think the Jets would have won with any other QB of that era.
Namath gets bonus points for his influence in the NFL's early mainstream years. The Colts-Jets game is still BY FAR the greatest upset in pro sports history and as a previous poster noted, we are still talking about Namath some 40 years later.
Bradshaw and Aikman are pretty similar IMO. Bradshaw has more ings so that's kinda my tie breaker. Personally, I never thought Aikman was ever one of the 5 best QB's in the NFL at any point in his career and I think an argument could be made that neither was Bradshaw. They both were on powerhouse teams but I think there were at least a half dozen QB's who could have led those teams to titles those same years.
Those Dallas teams could have had a guy like Boomer Esiason at QB(good QB but not as highly regarded as Aikman) and they still would have won 3 super bowls.
Those Pittsburgh teams could have had a guy like Kenny Anderson and still won 4 super bowls.
Namath was just a more important player IMO. I just don't think the Jets would have won with any other QB of that era.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
No, his name gets brought up today for three main reasons:- The Guarantee.
- Kissing Suze Kolber.
- Discussions about players who don't belong in the Hall of Fame.
The guy played in the media capital of the world. He was a ladies man. He wore fur coats and white cleats and pantyhose. He made a guarantee and shocked the nation. The win in the 1969 AFL-NFL Championship game (it wasn't known as Super Bowl III at the time) against the Colts helped to legitimize the AFL. That was Namath's major accomplishment, even though he didn't even throw a TD pass in the game.
He was larger than life. But a Hall-of-Fame player? No. If you want to put him in the Hall, put him in the "Contributors" wing, with such people as Al Davis, George Halas, Wellington Mara, Art Rooney, Pete Rozelle, etc. His guarantee and the resulting win helped form the league as we know it today. That is a "contribution" in my book.
If a QB retired today with 173 career TDs and 220 career INTs, and I made a claim that he should be elected to the Hall of Fame, you'd all send the men in the white coats to come and take me to the mental hospital. I like Broadway Joe. He seems like a great guy. Loved him on the Brady Bunch. I even think I had his jersey when I was a kid. But Namath being a "Hall of Fame player" is a joke.
If it's all about his contribution to the game, why not put Pete Gogolak in the Hall? He was the first soccer-style kicker.
Or how about William 'Fridge' Perry? Let's put him in, too. He showed it can be fun for fat defensive guys to play offense.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
All three are vastly overrated IMO (Aikman maybe less so than the others). Put them on average teams and they wouldn't have sniffed Canton. Might not even have been allowed in the state of Ohio. But as it turns out the Hall of Players from Really Good Teams loves nothing more than Super Bowl QBs.
Anyone know how many years until Trent Dilfer's eligible?
Anyone know how many years until Trent Dilfer's eligible?
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
This is the sort of ridiculous analysis that makes it tough to give your arguments any weight at all. For such an NFL historian, you're showing a huge lack of appreciation for the earlier days of the NFL. Otto Graham threw more INTs than TDs in the NFL. He was also one of the greatest QBs of all time.Namath is in the bottom half of HOF QBs, but I don't think he's one of the bottom two or three. He's arguably better than Aikman, Griese and Bradshaw, and I think he's better than Waterfield, Layne, and Blanda. And that would be an argument based purely on his stats, which you seem to discredit.
Namath was the first QB to throw for 4,000 yards in a season, which was a pretty incredible accomplishment back then. No one else did it until 1978, and he did it in 1967.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Dilfer is so far below these QBs that I don't think it's really worth mentioning. There are lots of SB winning QBs in between these guys and Dilfer.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Kenny Anderson and Boomer Esiason are two of the most underrated QBs in the world.It's tough to make any argument that doesn't include the word "Super Bowl" in it to say that Bradshaw was even half the QB that Anderson was. Anderson played in the Walsh offense that certainly inflated his stats, but I don't think Bradshaw would have put up anywhere near the same numbers on those teams.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Tongue in cheek there. Mostly.But Bradshaw was the 3rd best QB in his own division - behind Anderson and Sipe.To answer your Q: Aikman, Bradshaw and Namath
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
The thing is, era is relative when discussing QBs, just like era is a data point in discussing baseball players. Earle Combs hit 58 home runs lifetime (never even had 10 HR in a season) and played the OF. In today's era, no one would even think of inducting him, yet there he is in the HOF.Having more INT than TD was not that uncommon. Here are some career totals for other guys that played roughly the same era as Namath:Jim Hart 209 to 247John Hadl 244 to 268YA Tittle 242 to 248 (call it quits just before Namath started)John Brodie 214 to 224Norm Snead 196 to 257Joe Ferguson 196 to 209Ken Stabler 194 to 222Craig Morton 183 to 187George Blanda 236 to 277Bobby Layne 196 to 243Jim Plunkett 164 to 198Charley Johnson 170 to 181Archie Manning 125 to 173Lynn Dickey 141 to 179Babe Parilli 178 to 220Jack Kemp 114 to 183Dan Pastorini 103 to 161Milt Plum 122 to 127Greg Landry 98 to 103Bill Nelsen 98 to 101Sure, there are other QB in that time frame that have more TD than INT, but it was nowhere near the ratio that QBs have today.
Zoomanji
Footballguy
Which ones are the HOFers? They are the only relevant ones.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Interesting find today:
http://www.armchairgm.com/The_100_Greatest_Quarter
Has Bradshaw 19, Namath 32, and Aikman 33. Aikman and Namath rank pretty similarly in my system, but Bradshaw ranks way lower. I know he included post-season stats, but there's probably slightly more to it. Haven't read the full article yet.
http://www.armchairgm.com/The_100_Greatest_Quarter
Has Bradshaw 19, Namath 32, and Aikman 33. Aikman and Namath rank pretty similarly in my system, but Bradshaw ranks way lower. I know he included post-season stats, but there's probably slightly more to it. Haven't read the full article yet.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
You are comparing Joe Namath to Otto Graham, and I'm the one being ridiculous?Graham was a 10-time All-Pro.
He played ten season of professional football, and his team was in the title game ten times, winning seven of them.
His career QB rating was 86.6, compared to Namath's 65.5 rating. And the passing game was far more evolved in Joe's era.
Two questions for you. Please answer as best you can.
- If the Jets lost 42-0 to the Colts, would Namath be in the Hall of Fame?
- If you were not a Jets diehard, would you still be a 100% supporter of Namath's HoF credentials?
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
You take one player I list, and you use his stats in the AAFC to show that I'm being ridiculous? Okay.
I dunno if Namath would be in the HOF if the Jets lost to the Colts. But if he did make the HOF, he wouldn't be one of the worst 5 QBs currently in it.Your argument is akin to saying Don Hutson <<< Joe Horn. Era matters, and you've shown no regard for making such an adjustment.
Frenchy Fuqua
Footballguy
I don't think it's possible to have a credible analysis of all-time great quarterbacks without some (considerable) consideration of their postseason performance.
Last edited by a moderator:
dirty_martini
Footballguy
I think you should include team winning percentage and titles in the all encompassing single stat. After all, the point in football is to win the game and the title. If the QB truly is the most important position in the game, then winning percentage and titles have to be considered.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I couldn't disagree with this statement more. To be fair, the Hall of Fans Electing Their Favorite Players agrees with you.But Marino never won one. Elway whiffed on his first three(?). Anderson was 0-1. Favre only got one. Those guys are on another planet compared to Aikman, Bradshaw and Namath. And the list of average or poor QBs who've hauled down a ring is long.
Last edited by a moderator:
