Rank the QBs, all time (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Last thought on Namath....

It's easy to stop your analysis after noticing his huge INT numbers. But that ignores two things -- INTs don't come to all QBs at the same rate. QBs that avoid the sack by throwing risky passes have high INT numbers, but that's possibly a good thing for their team. And QBs that throw and complete lots of long passes have high INT numbers, and obviously completing long passes is a good thing.

Among QBs that have entered the league since 1965, Namath has the single highest career yards per completion rate. So yes, it's not surprising that he threw his share of interceptions. But that was the style of offense the Jets fan back then.

Namath also was terrific at avoiding the sack, ranking 2nd in sack percentage in 1969 and 1972, the only tow years in his prime that we have official sack data for. I've got some unofficial sack data, which is of questionable reliability of course, that indicates that Namath had only slight worse sack rates in '68 and '67. And of course, his strong sack data corroborates his reputation as having the quickest release in NFL history until Marino. When you're leading the league in yards per completion, it's very difficult to have low sack numbers, but he did.

Based on a straight statistical analysis, I've got Namath as the 30th best QB of all time, slightly ahead of Aikman and Bradshaw. It's an interesting debate. Obviously Ken Anderson should be in the HOF, but I don't think there are many QBs ahead of Namath that are HOF worthy but not yet enshrined (outside of guys not yet eligible). Maybe Boomer, or Gabriel, or John Hadl or Jim Hart, or Daryl Lamonica, but that's it. I get that Namath gets the HOF backlash because it's easier (tons of INTs omg!!!!111) but such an analysis is so thin that I'm surprised people accept it.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

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.

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.

I think you've misread my statement, postseason performance is much different than Super Bowls won. Stu conveniently omitted postseason performance because it doesn't support his contention that Namath was better than Bradshaw and Aikman. Quite the contrary actually....Compare Namath's career postseason numbers to Bradshaw's and I think it's easy to conclude which was the better QB.Namath was 2-1 in only 3 career postseason games. Two of the three (including the Super Bowl) he didn't have a single TD pass. Completion %: 42.7% YPA: 5.4 3TD/4INT

Bradshaw was 14-5. He threw at least one TD pass in 17 of those 19 games and multiple TD in his final 7. His completion % was 57.2% YPA: 8.4 (wow!) 30TD/26 INT

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Bradshaw YPA: 8.4 (wow!)

::Grudgingly:: That's a nice stat. Chase, can you list your best QBs list? You've obviously done a lot with this question...

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

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.

I think you've misread my statement, postseason performance is much different than Super Bowls won. Stu conveniently omitted postseason performance because it doesn't support his contention that Namath was better than Bradshaw and Aikman. Quite the contrary actually....Compare Namath's career postseason numbers to Bradshaw's and I think it's easy to conclude which was the better QB.Namath was 2-1 in only 3 career postseason games. Two of the three (including the Super Bowl) he didn't have a single TD pass. Completion %: 42.7% YPA: 5.4 3TD/4INT

Bradshaw was 14-5. He threw at least one TD pass in 17 of those 19 games and multiple TD in his final 7. His completion % was 57.2% YPA: 8.4 (wow!) 30TD/26 INT

Those are nice stats. But I didn't exclude post-season stats because it doesn't support my contention in the Namath/Bradshaw/Aikman debate. I simply didn't include post-season stats for any QB, ever. I ranked all 770 QBs in NFL history, so I thought regular season stats was a good enough start. The Namath debate came out of, what was to me, a surprisingly high finish for him.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Bradshaw YPA: 8.4 (wow!)

::Grudgingly:: That's a nice stat. Chase, can you list your best QBs list? You've obviously done a lot with this question...

Tuesday on the PFR blog.I think it's an interesting list. It surprisingly corresponds well with HOF data, despite just using regular season stats.

 

[Tau837]

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.

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.

As Frenchy already pointed out, he said postseason performance, not limited to Super Bowls. Another example to support this, aside from the Bradshaw example Frenchy posted, is Montana. In 23 postseason games, he was 16-7, including 4-0 in the Super Bowl, and put up these numbers: 463/732 (63.3%), 5772 passing yards (7.9 ypa), 45 TDs, 21 interceptions, 96.2 QB rating, with 64/310/0 (4.8 ypc) rushing. Any system that doesn't take that into account fails to account for the strongest part of his career, and thus shortchanges him.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

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.

As Frenchy already pointed out, he said postseason performance, not limited to Super Bowls. Another example to support this, aside from the Bradshaw example Frenchy posted, is Montana. In 23 postseason games, he was 16-7, including 4-0 in the Super Bowl, and put up these numbers: 463/732 (63.3%), 5772 passing yards (7.9 ypa), 45 TDs, 21 interceptions, 96.2 QB rating, with 64/310/0 (4.8 ypc) rushing. Any system that doesn't take that into account fails to account for the strongest part of his career, and thus shortchanges him.

Sure, Montana was great in the post-season... but he was great in the regular season, too.I think emphasizing Montana's post-season numbers is a disservice to him, because people think he lit it up in the post-season when he was Troy Aikman in the regular season. But he was an A+ in the playoffs, and an A+ in the regular season. We don't need to know that Montana ever won a single playoff game to know that he was one of the five greatest QBs in NFL history.

 

[Tau837]

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.

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.

As Frenchy already pointed out, he said postseason performance, not limited to Super Bowls. Another example to support this, aside from the Bradshaw example Frenchy posted, is Montana. In 23 postseason games, he was 16-7, including 4-0 in the Super Bowl, and put up these numbers: 463/732 (63.3%), 5772 passing yards (7.9 ypa), 45 TDs, 21 interceptions, 96.2 QB rating, with 64/310/0 (4.8 ypc) rushing. Any system that doesn't take that into account fails to account for the strongest part of his career, and thus shortchanges him.

Sure, Montana was great in the post-season... but he was great in the regular season, too.I think emphasizing Montana's post-season numbers is a disservice to him, because people think he lit it up in the post-season when he was Troy Aikman in the regular season. But he was an A+ in the playoffs, and an A+ in the regular season. We don't need to know that Montana ever won a single playoff game to know that he was one of the five greatest QBs in NFL history.

I get that about Montana and about your system in general. But the fact remains that he is not just one of the top 5 QBs in history, he is one of the top 2. IMO it is Montana and Unitas alone in the top tier. If your system ranks him there on regular season alone, great, but I'm guessing it won't.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Tuesday on the PFR blog.I think it's an interesting list. It surprisingly corresponds well with HOF data, despite just using regular season stats.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

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.

As Frenchy already pointed out, he said postseason performance, not limited to Super Bowls. Another example to support this, aside from the Bradshaw example Frenchy posted, is Montana. In 23 postseason games, he was 16-7, including 4-0 in the Super Bowl, and put up these numbers: 463/732 (63.3%), 5772 passing yards (7.9 ypa), 45 TDs, 21 interceptions, 96.2 QB rating, with 64/310/0 (4.8 ypc) rushing. Any system that doesn't take that into account fails to account for the strongest part of his career, and thus shortchanges him.

Sure, Montana was great in the post-season... but he was great in the regular season, too.I think emphasizing Montana's post-season numbers is a disservice to him, because people think he lit it up in the post-season when he was Troy Aikman in the regular season. But he was an A+ in the playoffs, and an A+ in the regular season. We don't need to know that Montana ever won a single playoff game to know that he was one of the five greatest QBs in NFL history.

I get that about Montana and about your system in general. But the fact remains that he is not just one of the top 5 QBs in history, he is one of the top 2. IMO it is Montana and Unitas alone in the top tier. If your system ranks him there on regular season alone, great, but I'm guessing it won't.

Fair enough.I've got 8 different lists (that are all highly correlated, for the most part), and Montana ranks as high as 3rd on one, and never lower than 6th.

One thing with these lists is it's tough to make everyone happy with career length. For example, Montana's career consists of "only" 164 starts. I could see people downgrading him for that, relative to other all time greats. A question of "which QB was the best" is slightly, but distinctly different from "which QB had the best career". You would want to downgrade Montana on the latter list, but not the former. I think they're both good questions, and neither is right or wrong. Just depends what you're interested in.

Additionally, Montana should be considered a better passer than a QB. He simply didn't have the legs that guys like Young, Tarkenton, Staubach or Elway had. Now he's obviously way better than Elway, but I could see cases made for any of the other three guys as better QBs, if not better passers, than Montana. (Staubach, curiously enough, is helped if you want to judge a QB by peak; Tarkenton is helped if you want to judge a QB by longevity; so you probably couldn't come up with a credible argument to rank Montana behind both guys, but you could come up with one to rank him behind either guy.)

But once again, Montana's regular season numbers speak for themselves. His 1989 and his 1984 seasons both rank in my list of top 25 seasons ever, and in the top 20 seasons since the merger. Coincidentally, his '84 season being so terrific is pretty good evidence for the Montana backers who want to argue against the theory that Jerry Rice made Montana who he is. Three of his best six seasons, according to my system, come from before Rice was in the league.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

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.

I agree with this nearly 100%.However, I'd go further and say that Aikman is one of the most overrated players in NFL history.When he had outstanding talent around him, he performed very well and was excellent in the big games.However, when Dallas was not as strong, he didn't do squat for their team. Emmitt was the player that the Cowboys lived and died with.

 

[SSOG]

Additionally, Montana should be considered a better passer than a QB. He simply didn't have the legs that guys like Young, Tarkenton, Staubach or Elway had. Now he's obviously way better than Elway...

Oh?Check how many offensive pro bowlers Montana played with in his first dozen years in the league. Check how many offensive pro bowlers Elway played with during his first dozen years. Consider whether this might have some bearing on why Montana's offensive statistics are clearly better than Elway's. Elway could have won superbowls on those 49ers teams. I question whether Montana could have made three SBs on those Broncos teams.And for those who don't know how much supporting cast matters... look at Jake Plummer's numbers in Arizona compared to his numbers in Denver. That's how much supporting cast matters. Just look at the offensive numbers "Shell of his Former Self Elway" put up in 1996-1998 once he finally had some offensive talent and quality coaching around him, and think about what he could have done if he'd had that his entire career, especially in his prime, like Montana did. And this is to say nothing of the fact that Montana played in perhaps the most QB-friendly system in football history back when defenses still didn't quite know what to do with it. Is it a coincidence that the QB in the system immediately before Montana (Ken Anderson) and the QB in the system immediately after Montana (Steve Young) also look like arguably two of the top 10 QBs of all time based on their statistics (#6 and #7 on the Armchair GM list)? You think it's more likely that Bill Walsh lucked into a third of the top 10 QBs in NFL history back-to-back-to-back than it is that his system made his QBs look better than they otherwise would have?I have no problem with anyone saying Montana's better than Elway, but when you start throwing in "obviously"s or "way better"s, that's when I'm going to have to disagree.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Additionally, Montana should be considered a better passer than a QB. He simply didn't have the legs that guys like Young, Tarkenton, Staubach or Elway had. Now he's obviously way better than Elway...

Oh?Check how many offensive pro bowlers Montana played with in his first dozen years in the league. Check how many offensive pro bowlers Elway played with during his first dozen years. Consider whether this might have some bearing on why Montana's offensive statistics are clearly better than Elway's. Elway could have won superbowls on those 49ers teams. I question whether Montana could have made three SBs on those Broncos teams.And for those who don't know how much supporting cast matters... look at Jake Plummer's numbers in Arizona compared to his numbers in Denver. That's how much supporting cast matters. Just look at the offensive numbers "Shell of his Former Self Elway" put up in 1996-1998 once he finally had some offensive talent and quality coaching around him, and think about what he could have done if he'd had that his entire career, especially in his prime, like Montana did. And this is to say nothing of the fact that Montana played in perhaps the most QB-friendly system in football history back when defenses still didn't quite know what to do with it. Is it a coincidence that the QB in the system immediately before Montana (Ken Anderson) and the QB in the system immediately after Montana (Steve Young) also look like arguably two of the top 10 QBs of all time based on their statistics (#6 and #7 on the Armchair GM list)? You think it's more likely that Bill Walsh lucked into a third of the top 10 QBs in NFL history back-to-back-to-back than it is that his system made his QBs look better than they otherwise would have?I have no problem with anyone saying Montana's better than Elway, but when you start throwing in "obviously"s or "way better"s, that's when I'm going to have to disagree.

All fair points. I'll remove the word obviously, and say Montana is almost certainly better than Elway .I think the Montana-Elway gap is wider than any Bradshaw/Aikman gap to Namath, assuming you think Namath is worse than the other two. Montana really was on another level entirely. As great as Elway was, in the Pantheon of Great QBs, he was more of a compiler than you might think. He doesn't have any "HEY LOOK AT ME" seasons. According to my list, his 1987 season was his best, and while it was a terrific year, it's nowhere near as impressive as the top seasons put up by most HOF QBs.(And yes, I know, this is looking simply at his statistics.)

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

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.

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.

As Frenchy already pointed out, he said postseason performance, not limited to Super Bowls. Another example to support this, aside from the Bradshaw example Frenchy posted, is Montana. In 23 postseason games, he was 16-7, including 4-0 in the Super Bowl, and put up these numbers: 463/732 (63.3%), 5772 passing yards (7.9 ypa), 45 TDs, 21 interceptions, 96.2 QB rating, with 64/310/0 (4.8 ypc) rushing. Any system that doesn't take that into account fails to account for the strongest part of his career, and thus shortchanges him.

Sure, Montana was great in the post-season... but he was great in the regular season, too.I think emphasizing Montana's post-season numbers is a disservice to him, because people think he lit it up in the post-season when he was Troy Aikman in the regular season. But he was an A+ in the playoffs, and an A+ in the regular season. We don't need to know that Montana ever won a single playoff game to know that he was one of the five greatest QBs in NFL history.

Looking at two of the big QB barometers...Joe Montana never had 4,000 yards passing in any single season and only once had 30+ TD passes in a season. Dan Marino went over 4,000 yards passing 6 different times and over 30+ TD passes 4 times. So if we pretend that neither had playoff experience I'd conclude Marino was the better QB. Not exactly.

 

[Tau837]

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.

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.

As Frenchy already pointed out, he said postseason performance, not limited to Super Bowls. Another example to support this, aside from the Bradshaw example Frenchy posted, is Montana. In 23 postseason games, he was 16-7, including 4-0 in the Super Bowl, and put up these numbers: 463/732 (63.3%), 5772 passing yards (7.9 ypa), 45 TDs, 21 interceptions, 96.2 QB rating, with 64/310/0 (4.8 ypc) rushing. Any system that doesn't take that into account fails to account for the strongest part of his career, and thus shortchanges him.

Sure, Montana was great in the post-season... but he was great in the regular season, too.I think emphasizing Montana's post-season numbers is a disservice to him, because people think he lit it up in the post-season when he was Troy Aikman in the regular season. But he was an A+ in the playoffs, and an A+ in the regular season. We don't need to know that Montana ever won a single playoff game to know that he was one of the five greatest QBs in NFL history.

I get that about Montana and about your system in general. But the fact remains that he is not just one of the top 5 QBs in history, he is one of the top 2. IMO it is Montana and Unitas alone in the top tier. If your system ranks him there on regular season alone, great, but I'm guessing it won't.

Fair enough.I've got 8 different lists (that are all highly correlated, for the most part), and Montana ranks as high as 3rd on one, and never lower than 6th.

One thing with these lists is it's tough to make everyone happy with career length. For example, Montana's career consists of "only" 164 starts. I could see people downgrading him for that, relative to other all time greats. A question of "which QB was the best" is slightly, but distinctly different from "which QB had the best career". You would want to downgrade Montana on the latter list, but not the former. I think they're both good questions, and neither is right or wrong. Just depends what you're interested in.

Additionally, Montana should be considered a better passer than a QB. He simply didn't have the legs that guys like Young, Tarkenton, Staubach or Elway had. Now he's obviously way better than Elway, but I could see cases made for any of the other three guys as better QBs, if not better passers, than Montana. (Staubach, curiously enough, is helped if you want to judge a QB by peak; Tarkenton is helped if you want to judge a QB by longevity; so you probably couldn't come up with a credible argument to rank Montana behind both guys, but you could come up with one to rank him behind either guy.)

But once again, Montana's regular season numbers speak for themselves. His 1989 and his 1984 seasons both rank in my list of top 25 seasons ever, and in the top 20 seasons since the merger. Coincidentally, his '84 season being so terrific is pretty good evidence for the Montana backers who want to argue against the theory that Jerry Rice made Montana who he is. Three of his best six seasons, according to my system, come from before Rice was in the league.

I suppose your bolded statement depends on one's definition of "best career"... please explain how you would rank Montana higher on a "which QB was best" list than on a "which QB had the best career" list, given the following: 2 MVPs, 3 Super Bowl MVPs, 3 1st team All Pro selections, top 10 career ranks in most major passing categories, and arguably the best postseason career in history. Exactly which QBs had careers better than that? :X I would have the opposite reaction to your bolded statement.

 

[Tau837]

Additionally, Montana should be considered a better passer than a QB. He simply didn't have the legs that guys like Young, Tarkenton, Staubach or Elway had. Now he's obviously way better than Elway...

Oh?Check how many offensive pro bowlers Montana played with in his first dozen years in the league. Check how many offensive pro bowlers Elway played with during his first dozen years. Consider whether this might have some bearing on why Montana's offensive statistics are clearly better than Elway's. Elway could have won superbowls on those 49ers teams. I question whether Montana could have made three SBs on those Broncos teams.

And for those who don't know how much supporting cast matters... look at Jake Plummer's numbers in Arizona compared to his numbers in Denver. That's how much supporting cast matters. Just look at the offensive numbers "Shell of his Former Self Elway" put up in 1996-1998 once he finally had some offensive talent and quality coaching around him, and think about what he could have done if he'd had that his entire career, especially in his prime, like Montana did. And this is to say nothing of the fact that Montana played in perhaps the most QB-friendly system in football history back when defenses still didn't quite know what to do with it. Is it a coincidence that the QB in the system immediately before Montana (Ken Anderson) and the QB in the system immediately after Montana (Steve Young) also look like arguably two of the top 10 QBs of all time based on their statistics (#6 and #7 on the Armchair GM list)? You think it's more likely that Bill Walsh lucked into a third of the top 10 QBs in NFL history back-to-back-to-back than it is that his system made his QBs look better than they otherwise would have?

I have no problem with anyone saying Montana's better than Elway, but when you start throwing in "obviously"s or "way better"s, that's when I'm going to have to disagree.

What a predictable response. On the two bolded statements:1. Please reference Montana's first Super Bowl championship team. It was comparable to the teams Elway played on early in his career. There is absolutely no basis to believe that Elway would have had equal or better success than Montana if their positions. And, in general, speculative arguments like that are not useful, anyway.

2. Jake Plummer is not a valid comparison. Montana and Elway were great players, on a much higher level than Plummer. Montana and Elway would have been great in any situation, as they showed in their careers. Plummer wouldn't be great in any situation, so the fact that supporting cast and coaching mattered to him is not evidence that it mattered to the same degree for players like Montana and Elway.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

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.

As Frenchy already pointed out, he said postseason performance, not limited to Super Bowls. Another example to support this, aside from the Bradshaw example Frenchy posted, is Montana. In 23 postseason games, he was 16-7, including 4-0 in the Super Bowl, and put up these numbers: 463/732 (63.3%), 5772 passing yards (7.9 ypa), 45 TDs, 21 interceptions, 96.2 QB rating, with 64/310/0 (4.8 ypc) rushing. Any system that doesn't take that into account fails to account for the strongest part of his career, and thus shortchanges him.

Sure, Montana was great in the post-season... but he was great in the regular season, too.I think emphasizing Montana's post-season numbers is a disservice to him, because people think he lit it up in the post-season when he was Troy Aikman in the regular season. But he was an A+ in the playoffs, and an A+ in the regular season. We don't need to know that Montana ever won a single playoff game to know that he was one of the five greatest QBs in NFL history.

Looking at two of the big QB barometers...Joe Montana never had 4,000 yards passing in any single season and only once had 30+ TD passes in a season. Dan Marino went over 4,000 yards passing 6 different times and over 30+ TD passes 4 times. So if we pretend that neither had playoff experience I'd conclude Marino was the better QB. Not exactly.

Marino and Montana can each be one of the five greatest QBs in NFL history.And 4000/30 are really just arbitrary numbers, and correlate more to attempts than talent.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

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.

As Frenchy already pointed out, he said postseason performance, not limited to Super Bowls. Another example to support this, aside from the Bradshaw example Frenchy posted, is Montana. In 23 postseason games, he was 16-7, including 4-0 in the Super Bowl, and put up these numbers: 463/732 (63.3%), 5772 passing yards (7.9 ypa), 45 TDs, 21 interceptions, 96.2 QB rating, with 64/310/0 (4.8 ypc) rushing. Any system that doesn't take that into account fails to account for the strongest part of his career, and thus shortchanges him.

Sure, Montana was great in the post-season... but he was great in the regular season, too.I think emphasizing Montana's post-season numbers is a disservice to him, because people think he lit it up in the post-season when he was Troy Aikman in the regular season. But he was an A+ in the playoffs, and an A+ in the regular season. We don't need to know that Montana ever won a single playoff game to know that he was one of the five greatest QBs in NFL history.

I get that about Montana and about your system in general. But the fact remains that he is not just one of the top 5 QBs in history, he is one of the top 2. IMO it is Montana and Unitas alone in the top tier. If your system ranks him there on regular season alone, great, but I'm guessing it won't.

Fair enough.I've got 8 different lists (that are all highly correlated, for the most part), and Montana ranks as high as 3rd on one, and never lower than 6th.

One thing with these lists is it's tough to make everyone happy with career length. For example, Montana's career consists of "only" 164 starts. I could see people downgrading him for that, relative to other all time greats. A question of "which QB was the best" is slightly, but distinctly different from "which QB had the best career". You would want to downgrade Montana on the latter list, but not the former. I think they're both good questions, and neither is right or wrong. Just depends what you're interested in.

Additionally, Montana should be considered a better passer than a QB. He simply didn't have the legs that guys like Young, Tarkenton, Staubach or Elway had. Now he's obviously way better than Elway, but I could see cases made for any of the other three guys as better QBs, if not better passers, than Montana. (Staubach, curiously enough, is helped if you want to judge a QB by peak; Tarkenton is helped if you want to judge a QB by longevity; so you probably couldn't come up with a credible argument to rank Montana behind both guys, but you could come up with one to rank him behind either guy.)

But once again, Montana's regular season numbers speak for themselves. His 1989 and his 1984 seasons both rank in my list of top 25 seasons ever, and in the top 20 seasons since the merger. Coincidentally, his '84 season being so terrific is pretty good evidence for the Montana backers who want to argue against the theory that Jerry Rice made Montana who he is. Three of his best six seasons, according to my system, come from before Rice was in the league.

I suppose your bolded statement depends on one's definition of "best career"... please explain how you would rank Montana higher on a "which QB was best" list than on a "which QB had the best career" list, given the following: 2 MVPs, 3 Super Bowl MVPs, 3 1st team All Pro selections, top 10 career ranks in most major passing categories, and arguably the best postseason career in history. Exactly which QBs had careers better than that? I would have the opposite reaction to your bolded statement.

I simply mean duration.If you were to pick a QB for 80 games, Montana looks a lot more appealing than if you were to pick a QB for 240 games. Montana was only a starter for 12 years. Lots of HOF QBs were starters for longer than that. That's all. It's obviously better to have an amazing QB for 250 games than for 150 games. Figuring out the trade-off between amazing for 150 games, and terrific for 250 games, or great for 250 games, or very good for 250 games, is kind of tricky.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

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.

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.

As Frenchy already pointed out, he said postseason performance, not limited to Super Bowls. Another example to support this, aside from the Bradshaw example Frenchy posted, is Montana. In 23 postseason games, he was 16-7, including 4-0 in the Super Bowl, and put up these numbers: 463/732 (63.3%), 5772 passing yards (7.9 ypa), 45 TDs, 21 interceptions, 96.2 QB rating, with 64/310/0 (4.8 ypc) rushing. Any system that doesn't take that into account fails to account for the strongest part of his career, and thus shortchanges him.

Sure, Montana was great in the post-season... but he was great in the regular season, too.I think emphasizing Montana's post-season numbers is a disservice to him, because people think he lit it up in the post-season when he was Troy Aikman in the regular season. But he was an A+ in the playoffs, and an A+ in the regular season. We don't need to know that Montana ever won a single playoff game to know that he was one of the five greatest QBs in NFL history.

Looking at two of the big QB barometers...Joe Montana never had 4,000 yards passing in any single season and only once had 30+ TD passes in a season. Dan Marino went over 4,000 yards passing 6 different times and over 30+ TD passes 4 times. So if we pretend that neither had playoff experience I'd conclude Marino was the better QB. Not exactly.

Marino and Montana can each be one of the five greatest QBs in NFL history.And 4000/30 are really just arbitrary numbers, and correlate more to attempts than talent.

But the point is by excluding postseason numbers you are missing the essence of what made Montana great as well as Marino's biggest shortcoming.

 

[Chase Stuart]

But the point is by excluding postseason numbers you are missing the essence of what made Montana great as well as Marino's biggest shortcoming.

Well, that's what I'm disagreeing with you about. By my book, if I just looked at Joe Montana's stats and didn't know if he ever played a post-season game, I'd say he's a top-5 QB in league history. You shortchange him by saying he was an amazing QB for 23 games when he was also an amazing QB for 164 games.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

But the point is by excluding postseason numbers you are missing the essence of what made Montana great as well as Marino's biggest shortcoming.

Well, that's what I'm disagreeing with you about. By my book, if I just looked at Joe Montana's stats and didn't know if he ever played a post-season game, I'd say he's a top-5 QB in league history. You shortchange him by saying he was an amazing QB for 23 games when he was also an amazing QB for 164 games.

But why not look at the entire picture rather than just regular season or just postseason? Seems like a silly debate here. You are arguing that regular season performance is more important than postseason? I disagree there but why not use both?

 

[Tau837]

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.

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.

As Frenchy already pointed out, he said postseason performance, not limited to Super Bowls. Another example to support this, aside from the Bradshaw example Frenchy posted, is Montana. In 23 postseason games, he was 16-7, including 4-0 in the Super Bowl, and put up these numbers: 463/732 (63.3%), 5772 passing yards (7.9 ypa), 45 TDs, 21 interceptions, 96.2 QB rating, with 64/310/0 (4.8 ypc) rushing. Any system that doesn't take that into account fails to account for the strongest part of his career, and thus shortchanges him.

Sure, Montana was great in the post-season... but he was great in the regular season, too.I think emphasizing Montana's post-season numbers is a disservice to him, because people think he lit it up in the post-season when he was Troy Aikman in the regular season. But he was an A+ in the playoffs, and an A+ in the regular season. We don't need to know that Montana ever won a single playoff game to know that he was one of the five greatest QBs in NFL history.

I get that about Montana and about your system in general. But the fact remains that he is not just one of the top 5 QBs in history, he is one of the top 2. IMO it is Montana and Unitas alone in the top tier. If your system ranks him there on regular season alone, great, but I'm guessing it won't.

Fair enough.I've got 8 different lists (that are all highly correlated, for the most part), and Montana ranks as high as 3rd on one, and never lower than 6th.

One thing with these lists is it's tough to make everyone happy with career length. For example, Montana's career consists of "only" 164 starts. I could see people downgrading him for that, relative to other all time greats. A question of "which QB was the best" is slightly, but distinctly different from "which QB had the best career". You would want to downgrade Montana on the latter list, but not the former. I think they're both good questions, and neither is right or wrong. Just depends what you're interested in.

Additionally, Montana should be considered a better passer than a QB. He simply didn't have the legs that guys like Young, Tarkenton, Staubach or Elway had. Now he's obviously way better than Elway, but I could see cases made for any of the other three guys as better QBs, if not better passers, than Montana. (Staubach, curiously enough, is helped if you want to judge a QB by peak; Tarkenton is helped if you want to judge a QB by longevity; so you probably couldn't come up with a credible argument to rank Montana behind both guys, but you could come up with one to rank him behind either guy.)

But once again, Montana's regular season numbers speak for themselves. His 1989 and his 1984 seasons both rank in my list of top 25 seasons ever, and in the top 20 seasons since the merger. Coincidentally, his '84 season being so terrific is pretty good evidence for the Montana backers who want to argue against the theory that Jerry Rice made Montana who he is. Three of his best six seasons, according to my system, come from before Rice was in the league.

I suppose your bolded statement depends on one's definition of "best career"... please explain how you would rank Montana higher on a "which QB was best" list than on a "which QB had the best career" list, given the following: 2 MVPs, 3 Super Bowl MVPs, 3 1st team All Pro selections, top 10 career ranks in most major passing categories, and arguably the best postseason career in history. Exactly which QBs had careers better than that? I would have the opposite reaction to your bolded statement.

I simply mean duration.If you were to pick a QB for 80 games, Montana looks a lot more appealing than if you were to pick a QB for 240 games. Montana was only a starter for 12 years. Lots of HOF QBs were starters for longer than that. That's all. It's obviously better to have an amazing QB for 250 games than for 150 games. Figuring out the trade-off between amazing for 150 games, and terrific for 250 games, or great for 250 games, or very good for 250 games, is kind of tricky.

Well, I looked this up to check it out. Here are the number of starts for the modern era HOF QBs, plus Favre, since he is a lock:Aikman - 165

Blanda - 109

Bradshaw - 158

Dawson - 159

Elway - 231

Favre - 253

Fouts - 171

Graham - 114

Griese - 151

Jurgensen - 149

Kelly - 160

Layne - 148

Marino - 240

Montana - 164

Moon - 203

Namath - 130

Starr - 158

Staubach - 114

Tarkenton - 239

Tittle - 154

Unitas - 186

Van Brocklin - 101

Waterfield - 57

Young - 143

First off, I'm not sure there are "lots of HOF QBs" who were starters for longer than Montana. I bolded the only ones above who would seem to fit that criteria. Of those:

1. I think we can safely eliminate Moon. That is, I doubt anyone would rather have his 203 starts over Montana's 164.

2. You already essentially dismissed Elway. This type of argument (i.e., the ability to start 50% more games and play them at a HOF level) is one of the only things he has on Montana, but I still think most people outside of Denver and its fanbase would prefer Montana's career.

3. The difference in terms of games started between Marino and Montana is essentially Marino's last 5 years. Would anyone really take Marino's career over Montana's based on those last 5 years?

4. You mentioned that you think a case can be made for Tarkenton. He was selected 1st team All Pro only 1 time, and performed poorly in the postseason. I think Tarkenton is probably underrated somewhat, but I can't see anyone preferring his career over Montana's.

5. I love Favre, and I think nowadays he is somewhat underrated because people got sick of his popularity. I think he is probably the closest based on the longevity argument. I'd still take Montana's career, but I certainly think if there is an argument for Tarkenton or Elway, it's there for Favre.

6. I've already said that I think Unitas and Montana are alone in the top tier of all time QBs. I think it's a toss up between them.

 

[Tau837]

But the point is by excluding postseason numbers you are missing the essence of what made Montana great as well as Marino's biggest shortcoming.

Well, that's what I'm disagreeing with you about. By my book, if I just looked at Joe Montana's stats and didn't know if he ever played a post-season game, I'd say he's a top-5 QB in league history. You shortchange him by saying he was an amazing QB for 23 games when he was also an amazing QB for 164 games.

Like Frenchy, I think this makes no sense. It's like you're saying looking at Montana's regular season career ranks him very high, and that's good enough, even though you have more data available. 23 games for Montana is more than 10% of his career, not even accounting for the fact that postseason games could be considered to be more important than regular season games.If you just don't have the time or inclination to figure out a good way to incorporate postseason data now, that's fine. Tell us you'll look at that in the next iteration. But don't act like postseason performance is irrelevant to ranking all time QB performance. That is absurd on its face and undermines the excellent work you're doing here.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Additionally, Montana should be considered a better passer than a QB. He simply didn't have the legs that guys like Young, Tarkenton, Staubach or Elway had. Now he's obviously way better than Elway, but I could see cases made for any of the other three guys as better QBs, if not better passers, than Montana.

Not sure I understand this part. Being a QB is about more than just being a good passer or good runner. Decision-making, reading defenses, avoiding sacks, etc. are all part of what makes a QB great.Montana is the best QB ever, but Elway is probably #3, IMO. I don't see how you can say Joe is "obviously way better than Elway".EDIT: Looks like this was already pointed out above.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I think the Montana-Elway gap is wider than any Bradshaw/Aikman gap to Namath, assuming you think Namath is worse than the other two. Montana really was on another level entirely. As great as Elway was, in the Pantheon of Great QBs, he was more of a compiler than you might think. He doesn't have any "HEY LOOK AT ME" seasons. According to my list, his 1987 season was his best, and while it was a terrific year, it's nowhere near as impressive as the top seasons put up by most HOF QBs.(And yes, I know, this is looking simply at his statistics.)

because he had awful surrounding talent and played under one of the most conservative coaches in the league. Elway is a top-10 "player" of all-time. People who look only at his stats will consistently underrate how good he was.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

But the point is by excluding postseason numbers you are missing the essence of what made Montana great as well as Marino's biggest shortcoming.

Well, that's what I'm disagreeing with you about. By my book, if I just looked at Joe Montana's stats and didn't know if he ever played a post-season game, I'd say he's a top-5 QB in league history. You shortchange him by saying he was an amazing QB for 23 games when he was also an amazing QB for 164 games.

But why not look at the entire picture rather than just regular season or just postseason? Seems like a silly debate here. You are arguing that regular season performance is more important than postseason? I disagree there but why not use both?

Chase, if you're looking at a player's entire career, why not just include the postseason stats? What is the reason for excluding it in this discussion?

 

[Chase Stuart]

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.

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.

As Frenchy already pointed out, he said postseason performance, not limited to Super Bowls. Another example to support this, aside from the Bradshaw example Frenchy posted, is Montana. In 23 postseason games, he was 16-7, including 4-0 in the Super Bowl, and put up these numbers: 463/732 (63.3%), 5772 passing yards (7.9 ypa), 45 TDs, 21 interceptions, 96.2 QB rating, with 64/310/0 (4.8 ypc) rushing. Any system that doesn't take that into account fails to account for the strongest part of his career, and thus shortchanges him.

Sure, Montana was great in the post-season... but he was great in the regular season, too.I think emphasizing Montana's post-season numbers is a disservice to him, because people think he lit it up in the post-season when he was Troy Aikman in the regular season. But he was an A+ in the playoffs, and an A+ in the regular season. We don't need to know that Montana ever won a single playoff game to know that he was one of the five greatest QBs in NFL history.

I get that about Montana and about your system in general. But the fact remains that he is not just one of the top 5 QBs in history, he is one of the top 2. IMO it is Montana and Unitas alone in the top tier. If your system ranks him there on regular season alone, great, but I'm guessing it won't.

Fair enough.I've got 8 different lists (that are all highly correlated, for the most part), and Montana ranks as high as 3rd on one, and never lower than 6th.

One thing with these lists is it's tough to make everyone happy with career length. For example, Montana's career consists of "only" 164 starts. I could see people downgrading him for that, relative to other all time greats. A question of "which QB was the best" is slightly, but distinctly different from "which QB had the best career". You would want to downgrade Montana on the latter list, but not the former. I think they're both good questions, and neither is right or wrong. Just depends what you're interested in.

Additionally, Montana should be considered a better passer than a QB. He simply didn't have the legs that guys like Young, Tarkenton, Staubach or Elway had. Now he's obviously way better than Elway, but I could see cases made for any of the other three guys as better QBs, if not better passers, than Montana. (Staubach, curiously enough, is helped if you want to judge a QB by peak; Tarkenton is helped if you want to judge a QB by longevity; so you probably couldn't come up with a credible argument to rank Montana behind both guys, but you could come up with one to rank him behind either guy.)

But once again, Montana's regular season numbers speak for themselves. His 1989 and his 1984 seasons both rank in my list of top 25 seasons ever, and in the top 20 seasons since the merger. Coincidentally, his '84 season being so terrific is pretty good evidence for the Montana backers who want to argue against the theory that Jerry Rice made Montana who he is. Three of his best six seasons, according to my system, come from before Rice was in the league.

I suppose your bolded statement depends on one's definition of "best career"... please explain how you would rank Montana higher on a "which QB was best" list than on a "which QB had the best career" list, given the following: 2 MVPs, 3 Super Bowl MVPs, 3 1st team All Pro selections, top 10 career ranks in most major passing categories, and arguably the best postseason career in history. Exactly which QBs had careers better than that? I would have the opposite reaction to your bolded statement.

I simply mean duration.If you were to pick a QB for 80 games, Montana looks a lot more appealing than if you were to pick a QB for 240 games. Montana was only a starter for 12 years. Lots of HOF QBs were starters for longer than that. That's all. It's obviously better to have an amazing QB for 250 games than for 150 games. Figuring out the trade-off between amazing for 150 games, and terrific for 250 games, or great for 250 games, or very good for 250 games, is kind of tricky.

Well, I looked this up to check it out. Here are the number of starts for the modern era HOF QBs, plus Favre, since he is a lock:Aikman - 165

Blanda - 109

Bradshaw - 158

Dawson - 159

Elway - 231

Favre - 253

Fouts - 171

Graham - 114

Griese - 151

Jurgensen - 149

Kelly - 160

Layne - 148

Marino - 240

Montana - 164

Moon - 203

Namath - 130

Starr - 158

Staubach - 114

Tarkenton - 239

Tittle - 154

Unitas - 186

Van Brocklin - 101

Waterfield - 57

Young - 143

First off, I'm not sure there are "lots of HOF QBs" who were starters for longer than Montana. I bolded the only ones above who would seem to fit that criteria. Of those:

1. I think we can safely eliminate Moon. That is, I doubt anyone would rather have his 203 starts over Montana's 164.

2. You already essentially dismissed Elway. This type of argument (i.e., the ability to start 50% more games and play them at a HOF level) is one of the only things he has on Montana, but I still think most people outside of Denver and its fanbase would prefer Montana's career.

3. The difference in terms of games started between Marino and Montana is essentially Marino's last 5 years. Would anyone really take Marino's career over Montana's based on those last 5 years?

4. You mentioned that you think a case can be made for Tarkenton. He was selected 1st team All Pro only 1 time, and performed poorly in the postseason. I think Tarkenton is probably underrated somewhat, but I can't see anyone preferring his career over Montana's.

5. I love Favre, and I think nowadays he is somewhat underrated because people got sick of his popularity. I think he is probably the closest based on the longevity argument. I'd still take Montana's career, but I certainly think if there is an argument for Tarkenton or Elway, it's there for Favre.

6. I've already said that I think Unitas and Montana are alone in the top tier of all time QBs. I think it's a toss up between them.

I agree with you on most of these; I think your arguments are short-changing Tarkenton and Marino by a good bit. (You seem to think Marino stunk for the last five years of his career, but he was still excellent until his last two seasons.) And Peyton already has 160 starts, so he's got to be in the discussion as well. None of these are slam dunks, obviously, so everyone's mileage will vary.

 

[Chase Stuart]

But the point is by excluding postseason numbers you are missing the essence of what made Montana great as well as Marino's biggest shortcoming.

Well, that's what I'm disagreeing with you about. By my book, if I just looked at Joe Montana's stats and didn't know if he ever played a post-season game, I'd say he's a top-5 QB in league history. You shortchange him by saying he was an amazing QB for 23 games when he was also an amazing QB for 164 games.

Like Frenchy, I think this makes no sense. It's like you're saying looking at Montana's regular season career ranks him very high, and that's good enough, even though you have more data available. 23 games for Montana is more than 10% of his career, not even accounting for the fact that postseason games could be considered to be more important than regular season games.If you just don't have the time or inclination to figure out a good way to incorporate postseason data now, that's fine. Tell us you'll look at that in the next iteration. But don't act like postseason performance is irrelevant to ranking all time QB performance. That is absurd on its face and undermines the excellent work you're doing here.

I don't have the time to figure out a good way to incorporate postseason data now.My apologies for not making that clear before. Post-season performance, of course, is important. I just don't have the energy to deal with that now.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think the Montana-Elway gap is wider than any Bradshaw/Aikman gap to Namath, assuming you think Namath is worse than the other two. Montana really was on another level entirely. As great as Elway was, in the Pantheon of Great QBs, he was more of a compiler than you might think. He doesn't have any "HEY LOOK AT ME" seasons. According to my list, his 1987 season was his best, and while it was a terrific year, it's nowhere near as impressive as the top seasons put up by most HOF QBs.(And yes, I know, this is looking simply at his statistics.)

because he had awful surrounding talent and played under one of the most conservative coaches in the league. Elway is a top-10 "player" of all-time. People who look only at his stats will consistently underrate how good he was.

I understand that Elway had awful surrounding talent, but he also played against some awful teams. The AFC was a joke for most of Elway's career.While he may have played under a conservative coach, that doesn't mean he couldn't put up impressive per attempt stats. He didn't. Someone like Roethlisberger, who isn't as good as Elway, put up some terrific numbers on a per attempt basis while playing under Cowher.

 

[Chase Stuart]

But the point is by excluding postseason numbers you are missing the essence of what made Montana great as well as Marino's biggest shortcoming.

Well, that's what I'm disagreeing with you about. By my book, if I just looked at Joe Montana's stats and didn't know if he ever played a post-season game, I'd say he's a top-5 QB in league history. You shortchange him by saying he was an amazing QB for 23 games when he was also an amazing QB for 164 games.

But why not look at the entire picture rather than just regular season or just postseason? Seems like a silly debate here. You are arguing that regular season performance is more important than postseason? I disagree there but why not use both?

Chase, if you're looking at a player's entire career, why not just include the postseason stats? What is the reason for excluding it in this discussion?

Well it's not so much as excluding the data as not including the data. I've got a file full of regular season stats only, so that's why I went with that. It wasn't a conscious decision not to include post-season stats, although that's only half the explanation.The other part is that I'm not really sure what to do with post-season data. I'm not sure anyone really knows what to do with it. I could simply just add the data like any other game. I'd have some difficulties with each QB not playing the same number of games, but I could work around that. Or, I could come up with a system where I weight the QB's wildcard game stats by two, his division stats by three, his conference stats by four, and his SB stats by five. Would people like that? Maybe. I could give QBs credit for post-season wins, and negatives for post-season losses.I don't really know what to do. There isn't really a standard formula for how to weigh post-season data. I don't think anyone has come up with a way that doesn't draw a ton of controversy. If you want to link me to a study that's included post-season data, or if you just want to give me your own ideas, rock on. I could use 'em.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Well it's not so much as excluding the data as not including the data. I've got a file full of regular season stats only, so that's why I went with that. It wasn't a conscious decision not to include post-season stats, although that's only half the explanation.The other part is that I'm not really sure what to do with post-season data. I'm not sure anyone really knows what to do with it. I could simply just add the data like any other game. I'd have some difficulties with each QB not playing the same number of games, but I could work around that. Or, I could come up with a system where I weight the QB's wildcard game stats by two, his division stats by three, his conference stats by four, and his SB stats by five. Would people like that? Maybe. I could give QBs credit for post-season wins, and negatives for post-season losses.I don't really know what to do. There isn't really a standard formula for how to weigh post-season data. I don't think anyone has come up with a way that doesn't draw a ton of controversy. If you want to link me to a study that's included post-season data, or if you just want to give me your own ideas, rock on. I could use 'em.

How do you handle a year where a QB got injured or missed part of the season for some reason? I don't think every QB in your list played a full 16-game season every time out, did they? I think adding the data "like any other game" is highly preferable to excluding it completely. The weighting is obviously where things get more subjective. But, excluding it completely makes this seem like an incomplete analysis as those games are pretty much the most important games that QB played all year.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Well it's not so much as excluding the data as not including the data. I've got a file full of regular season stats only, so that's why I went with that. It wasn't a conscious decision not to include post-season stats, although that's only half the explanation.The other part is that I'm not really sure what to do with post-season data. I'm not sure anyone really knows what to do with it. I could simply just add the data like any other game. I'd have some difficulties with each QB not playing the same number of games, but I could work around that. Or, I could come up with a system where I weight the QB's wildcard game stats by two, his division stats by three, his conference stats by four, and his SB stats by five. Would people like that? Maybe. I could give QBs credit for post-season wins, and negatives for post-season losses.I don't really know what to do. There isn't really a standard formula for how to weigh post-season data. I don't think anyone has come up with a way that doesn't draw a ton of controversy. If you want to link me to a study that's included post-season data, or if you just want to give me your own ideas, rock on. I could use 'em.

How do you handle a year where a QB got injured or missed part of the season for some reason? I don't think every QB in your list played a full 16-game season every time out, did they? I think adding the data "like any other game" is highly preferable to excluding it completely. The weighting is obviously where things get more subjective. But, excluding it completely makes this seem like an incomplete analysis as those games are pretty much the most important games that QB played all year.

What I mean by weighing is say Bart Starr's post-season to Tom Brady's post-season; there were a different number of games. Do Starr's first playoff game get weighted twice, or three times, or four times? :shukederhaps more importantly, do I weigh the performance of the QB against either: 1) the average QB in the regular season in Year N; 2) the average QB in the playoffs in Year N; or 3) some percent (not necessarily arbitrary) reduction from the league average in the regular season in Year N?

 

[Sea Bass]

You can pick and choose any stats you want on Namath, he simply doesn't belong in this conversation. He should have huge monster numbers considering he played part of his career in the old AFL, where scoring and talent rivals the modern Arena League. He is known for running his mouth before they beat the Colts. A game in which he personally played a rather medicore game. It was a strong defense, a good running game, and an injured Unitas that was the difference in that game. I personally witnessed him toss poorly thrown interceptions way too many times to believe that he was anything but average at best.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You can pick and choose any stats you want on Namath, he simply doesn't belong in this conversation. He should have huge monster numbers considering he played part of his career in the old AFL, where scoring and talent rivals the modern Arena League. He is known for running his mouth before they beat the Colts. A game in which he personally played a rather medicore game. It was a strong defense, a good running game, and an injured Unitas that was the difference in that game. I personally witnessed him toss poorly thrown interceptions way too many times to believe that he was anything but average at best.

So Namath wasn't any good, the scouting and talent of the league was bad, yet they beat one of the greatest teams of all time? The AAFC, I think, was pretty similar to the Arena Football League. The AFL was on par with the NFL, and did manage to split a couple of Super Bowls.As for Unitas, he wasn't even the team's starting QB that season. Earl Morrall had a dynamite season that year, and IIRC, NFL MVP.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This thread has prompted me to do some research on post-season data. A few problems so far:

1) I've got no post-season data from before 1967

2) I've got no sacks data whatsoever

3) I'm starting to remember why I was hesitant to do this before. You run into some serious issues with sample size that you don't have in the regular season. A QB might play a really tough defense, or play in a blizzard, or whatever, and that stuff doesn't average out over two games. I suspect that people will have a lot of legitimate gripes with some of the results.

That said, I'm still moving along here.

 

[Tau837]

That said, I'm still moving along here.

 

[Chase Stuart]

That said, I'm still moving along here.

Just about done, although I'll probably hold off on revealing the data for a day or two.That said, what now? Do I just add the yards above average to the regular season data? Do I weigh the performance by round?

I am pretty sure whatever I pick will anger some people. Any thoughts on the proper methodology here?

(BTW, things should be a bit clearer come tomorrow and Tuesday once I make some more PFR blog posts, as you know.)

 

[Englishteacher]

No Akili Smith option?

 

[SSOG]

What a predictable response. On the two bolded statements:1. Please reference Montana's first Super Bowl championship team. It was comparable to the teams Elway played on early in his career. There is absolutely no basis to believe that Elway would have had equal or better success than Montana if their positions. And, in general, speculative arguments like that are not useful, anyway.2. Jake Plummer is not a valid comparison. Montana and Elway were great players, on a much higher level than Plummer. Montana and Elway would have been great in any situation, as they showed in their careers. Plummer wouldn't be great in any situation, so the fact that supporting cast and coaching mattered to him is not evidence that it mattered to the same degree for players like Montana and Elway.

1. The 1981 SB champion Niners were, outside of Montana, as bad as the 1986 Denver Broncos? Seriously? Arguably on offense (although Clark/Solomon sure beat Mark Jackson and Vance Johnson, and Montana had 3 pro-bowl caliber linemen compared to one for Elway, and Elway's leading rusher averaged 3.3 yards per attempt...), but the 1981 49ers had the #2 ranked defense in the league in terms of yards, #2 ranked defense in the league in terms of points allowed, and #3 defense in the league at forcing turnovers. The 1986 Broncos? 9th in yards allowed, 15th in points allowed, 17th in forcing turnovers. Hardly comparable at all. The 1986 Broncos were one of the worst SB teams of all time. If not for Elway's presence on the squad, the question would be "Worst SB squad ever- 1986 Broncos or 1979 Rams?"2. Plummer's not a comparison, he's an illustration. Plummer shows pretty clearly that the exact same QB can be night-and-day different with better supporting talent. I'm not saying that either Elway or Montana would be as bad in Arizona as Plummer was (Elway showed pretty convincingly that he wouldn't be, in fact), I'm just saying that clearly supporting cast matters far more than people want to admit.If you want some better comparisons, how about Tom Brady? Compare his numbers with little offensive supporting talent to his numbers with a lot of offensive supporting talent. Or even John Elway himself- look at his numbers before 1995 and compare them to his numbers after 1995. His post-1995 numbers are way better, despite the fact that his skills had declined (like all aging QB's skills do).

All fair points. I'll remove the word obviously, and say Montana is almost certainly better than Elway .I think the Montana-Elway gap is wider than any Bradshaw/Aikman gap to Namath, assuming you think Namath is worse than the other two. Montana really was on another level entirely. As great as Elway was, in the Pantheon of Great QBs, he was more of a compiler than you might think. He doesn't have any "HEY LOOK AT ME" seasons. According to my list, his 1987 season was his best, and while it was a terrific year, it's nowhere near as impressive as the top seasons put up by most HOF QBs.(And yes, I know, this is looking simply at his statistics.)

Someone mentioned earlier that Elway was one of the few QBs who maintained his HoF-caliber play all the way through 16 seasons. In reality, there was a dropoff in Elway's abilities, it was just masked by a rise in support. Montana benefitted from having his Jerry Rice, Roger Craig, and Bill Walsh while he was still in his prime. If Elway had had his Rod Smith, Terrell Davis, and Mike Shanahan in HIS prime, I suspect you'd be singing a far different tune right now.

While he may have played under a conservative coach, that doesn't mean he couldn't put up impressive per attempt stats. He didn't. Someone like Roethlisberger, who isn't as good as Elway, put up some terrific numbers on a per attempt basis while playing under Cowher.

There's a huge philosophical difference between Cowher and Reeves. Cowher uses the pass to set up the run. Reeves uses the pass to bail out the run. Ben Roethlisberger gets a lot of his attempts early in the game while the Steelers are building a lead, or on early downs to get them into good running situations. John Elway got a lot of his attempts late in the game while trying to make a frantic comeback, or on late downs when the run had failed twice and he was in long-yardage situations. Roethlisberger's situation was the best possible situation for building good per-attempt stats, while Elway's was about the worst possible.Just because both coaches are "conservative" doesn't mean they're comparable. And Cowher wasn't even that conservative with Ben in town- he was a big believer in lots of passing as they were building a lead, he just knew how to hold that lead once he built it better than anyone else in NFL history.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Just Win Baby should be happy to know, that on my revised list, I've got Montana as the greatest statistical QB in history. The revised list includes post-season performance.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Just Win Baby should be happy to know, that on my revised list, I've got Montana as the greatest statistical QB in history. The revised list includes post-season performance.

Additionally, while based on just the regular season my system ranked Namath ahead of Aikman and Bradshaw, the inclusion of the post-season bumps those two ahead of Namath.

 

[Tau837]

Just Win Baby should be happy to know, that on my revised list, I've got Montana as the greatest statistical QB in history. The revised list includes post-season performance.

Where is Unitas? (Just point me to the revised list, if it is posted somewhere.)

 

[Chase Stuart]

Just Win Baby should be happy to know, that on my revised list, I've got Montana as the greatest statistical QB in history. The revised list includes post-season performance.

Where is Unitas? (Just point me to the revised list, if it is posted somewhere.)

I don't have much of Unitas' post-season, unfortunately. He ranked as the 7th best QB before the inclusion of post-season data.

 

[Manster]

Fantasy points across their careers . . .NAMATH 65-771 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 70-831 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 89-001 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).

you cant really be comparing fantasy stats to real football, can you? one of Aikman's best attributes was between his ears. that doesn't always show up on the stat sheet. Aikman is always ragged on as being overrated, because he didnt' put up huge numbers. but he won 3 SB's by playing the game smart, and not trying to do too much. how many did young and favre win? i like to ask, "who was the best leader of their team?" i cant really pick between Bradshaw/Aikman. both great football players from different eras. both guys that had their respective team's confidence to win the game for them. both had great success on dynasties.Namath is a big part of the history of the game, but Broadway Joe isn't in the same league with these guys. unless we're talkin about keg stands.

 

[Manster]

Just Win Baby should be happy to know, that on my revised list, I've got Montana as the greatest statistical QB in history. The revised list includes post-season performance.

Additionally, while based on just the regular season my system ranked Namath ahead of Aikman and Bradshaw, the inclusion of the post-season bumps those two ahead of Namath.

Aikman, the winningest QB of the 90's

 

[Chase Stuart]

Just Win Baby should be happy to know, that on my revised list, I've got Montana as the greatest statistical QB in history. The revised list includes post-season performance.

Additionally, while based on just the regular season my system ranked Namath ahead of Aikman and Bradshaw, the inclusion of the post-season bumps those two ahead of Namath.

Aikman, the winningest QB of the 90's

To be fair, I was only ranking Aikman, not every single player on the '90s Cowboys.

 

[Manster]

Aikman, the winningest QB of the 90's

To be fair, I was only ranking Aikman, not every single player on the '90s Cowboys.

i understand. all i'm sayin is, you dont have to lead the league in TD passes and yardage to be a great QB.

 

[Bills_Fan11]

Aikman, Bradshaw, NamathThat 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 about sums it up.

 

[David Yudkin]

Using their 5 best fantasy seasons . . .

Bradshaw

2, 3, 5, 6, 7 = 23

Namath

5, 6, 6, 7, 7 = 31

Aikman

4, 9, 13, 15, 16 = 57