Top 20 regular season QB's - all time (1 Viewer)

[moleculo]

First, the rankings:

=================

1 Steve Young 82.9%

2 Staubach 82.8%

3 Peyton Manning 80.6%

4 Luckman 80.2%

5 Brady 80.1%

6 Montana 78.9%

7 Warner 75.4%

8 Bob Griese 75.3%

9 Van Brocklin 75.3%

10 Brees 74.3%

11 Favre 70.9%

12 Bradshaw 70.2%

13 Unitas 69.9%

14 Herber 69.8%

15 Gannon 69.4%

16 Marino 68.6%

17 Elway 66.3%

18 McNabb 65.4%

19 Moon 64.7%

20 Layne 64.4%

================

Criteria: The % score represents how much better the QB's offense is relative to his contemporaries. This is based on a minimum of 8 seasons as starting QB.

================

An offenses job is to score points, period. As long as the ball gets in the end-zone, it doesn't really matter how it happens. A QB is the head of the offense, and so when we try to compare QB's, we really should be looking at what the whole offense produces. passing is nice, but if a QB can manage a rushing attack and keep a D off balance, that's important too. In the end, interceptions, YPA, TD passes, passing yards, etc are all unimportant. Only one stat helps a team win, and that's total points.

To compare QB's, therefore, I looked at team offensive rank. To normalize across era's, I divided that ranking by number of teams. This fraction basically represents how good a team is, lower is better. For example, the highest scoring team in the league is ranked 1. 1/32 = 0.03125. To make this fraction make better sense, I subtracted from 1, and the first place team now has a value of .96875.

Now, for every team since 1920 I calculated this value, and attributed the value to that teams leading passer. For each passer, I averaged these values, and above is the result. You can interpret this as, "over his career, Peyton Mannings offenses have been in the 80th percentile, or top 20%, of his contemporaries.

I like this because it makes comparing across eras easy. I am really only looking at how a team did within it's own era, which means there is no inflation for different rules or different numbers of teams. looking at the players, there is a good mix of pre- and post-merger players as well, which I think is cool.

I chose a cut-off of 8 years, as that seemed to maximize the number of HoF in the top 40. It sounds reasonable - 8 great seasons seems to be a good threshhold for HoF eligibility. I also only considered NFL stats - no AFL, no AAFC. That does hurt some guys like Graham and Namath.

Looking at some specific players:

Steve Young:

Year Tm Passing Pts out of score1986 Tampa Bay Buccaneers Steve Young 26 28 7%1991 San Francisco 49ers Steve Young 3 28 89%1992 San Francisco 49ers* Steve Young 1 28 96%1993 San Francisco 49ers* Steve Young 1 28 96%1994 San Francisco 49ers* Steve Young 1 28 96%1995 San Francisco 49ers* Steve Young 1 30 97%1996 San Francisco 49ers* Steve Young 3 30 90%1997 San Francisco 49ers* Steve Young 5 30 83%1998 San Francisco 49ers* Steve Young 3 30 90%Outside of Youngs season in Tampa, every single offense he ever ran was at least top 5. no wonder he leads the list.
Staubach was a guy I hadn't thought highly of before this list:

1971 Dallas Cowboys* Staubach 1 26 96%1973 Dallas Cowboys* Staubach 2 26 92%1974 Dallas Cowboys Staubach 8 26 69%1975 Dallas Cowboys* Staubach 8 26 69%1976 Dallas Cowboys* Staubach 10 28 64%1977 Dallas Cowboys* Staubach 2 28 93%1978 Dallas Cowboys* Staubach 1 28 96%1979 Dallas Cowboys* Staubach 5 28 82%He never had a bad season as a starting QB, and 4 seasons running a top 2 offense. That's tough to dispute.
Luckman:

1940 Chicago Bears* Luckman 2 10 80%1941 Chicago Bears* Luckman 1 10 90%1942 Chicago Bears* Luckman 1 10 90%1943 Chicago Bears* Luckman 1 10 90%1944 Chicago Bears Luckman 2 11 82%1945 Chicago Bears Luckman 6 10 40%1946 Chicago Bears* Luckman 1 10 90%1947 Chicago Bears Luckman 1 10 90%1948 Chicago Bears Luckman 3 10 70%Here, there is only one season below league average. His offense was the best in the league 5 out of 9 seasons.
Warner seems a little high to me - here's how he stacks up:

1999 St. Louis Rams* Warner 1 31 97%2000 St. Louis Rams* Warner 1 31 97%2001 St. Louis Rams* Warner 1 31 97%2004 New York Giants Warner 22 32 31%2005 Arizona Cardinals Warner 17 32 47%2007 Arizona Cardinals Warner 7 32 78%2008 Arizona Cardinals* Warner 3 32 91%2009 Arizona Cardinals* Warner 11 32 66%three times his offenses led the league in scoring, and two other top 7 finishes.
another guy I don't know much about:

1932 Green Bay Packers Herber 2 8 75%1933 Green Bay Packers Herber 2 10 80%1934 Green Bay Packers Herber 3 11 73%1935 Green Bay Packers Herber 3 9 67%1936 Green Bay Packers* Herber 1 9 89%1937 Green Bay Packers Herber 1 10 90%1939 Green Bay Packers* Herber 3 10 70%1944 New York Giants* Herber 5 11 55%1945 New York Giants Herber 7 10 30%
consistently great.

anyways, I thought this was pretty interesting, and a good way to compare across eras. I haven't seen many rankings like this that dig that far back; just thought I'd share.

ETA: title changed.

 

[Shtaym Syek]

An offenses job is to score points, period. As long as the ball gets in the end-zone, it doesn't really matter how it happens. A QB is the head of the offense, and so when we try to compare QB's, we really should be looking at what the whole offense produces. passing is nice, but if a QB can manage a rushing attack and keep a D off balance, that's important too. In the end, interceptions, YPA, TD passes, passing yards, etc are all unimportant. Only one stat helps a team win, and that's total points.

Interceptions help the other team score points. Holding those down helps a team win.Based on a completely fabricated premise, I can't go further. Sorry.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

An offenses job is to score points, period. As long as the ball gets in the end-zone, it doesn't really matter how it happens. A QB is the head of the offense, and so when we try to compare QB's, we really should be looking at what the whole offense produces.

really?

 

[DoubleG]

First, the rankings:=================1 Steve Young 82.9%2 Staubach 82.8%3 Peyton Manning 80.6%4 Luckman 80.2%5 Brady 80.1%6 Montana 78.9%7 Warner 75.4%8 Bob Griese 75.3%9 Van Brocklin 75.3%10 Brees 74.3%11 Favre 70.9%12 Bradshaw 70.2%13 Unitas 69.9%14 Herber 69.8%15 Gannon 69.4%16 Marino 68.6%17 Elway 66.3%18 McNabb 65.4%19 Moon 64.7%20 Layne 64.4%================Criteria: The % score represents how much better the QB's offense is relative to his contemporaries. This is based on a minimum of 8 seasons as starting QB.================An offenses job is to score points, period. As long as the ball gets in the end-zone, it doesn't really matter how it happens. A QB is the head of the offense, and so when we try to compare QB's, we really should be looking at what the whole offense produces. passing is nice, but if a QB can manage a rushing attack and keep a D off balance, that's important too. In the end, interceptions, YPA, TD passes, passing yards, etc are all unimportant. Only one stat helps a team win, and that's total points.To compare QB's, therefore, I looked at team offensive rank. To normalize across era's, I divided that ranking by number of teams. This fraction basically represents how good a team is, lower is better. For example, the highest scoring team in the league is ranked 1. 1/32 = 0.03125. To make this fraction make better sense, I subtracted from 1, and the first place team now has a value of .96875. Now, for every team since 1920 I calculated this value, and attributed the value to that teams leading passer. For each passer, I averaged these values, and above is the result. You can interpret this as, "over his career, Peyton Mannings offenses have been in the 80th percentile, or top 20%, of his contemporaries.I like this because it makes comparing across eras easy. I am really only looking at how a team did within it's own era, which means there is no inflation for different rules or different numbers of teams. looking at the players, there is a good mix of pre- and post-merger players as well, which I think is cool.I chose a cut-off of 8 years, as that seemed to maximize the number of HoF in the top 40. It sounds reasonable - 8 great seasons seems to be a good threshhold for HoF eligibility. I also only considered NFL stats - no AFL, no AAFC. That does hurt some guys like Graham and Namath.

There are so many flaws in your method it is difficult to begin. I'll start at the end of this and work backwards.

I chose a cut-off of 8 years, as that seemed to maximize the number of HoF in the top 40.

This is a backwards way to look at stats. You chose an arbitrary cut off point to match your already-partially-arrived-at conclusion.Using the number of teams as a function of ranking the offense is also flawed, as the expansions (the recent ones) naturally weakend the talent pool, thus artificially changing the stats. Finally, this statement (and assertion) is ridiculous:

A QB is the head of the offense, and so when we try to compare QB's, we really should be looking at what the whole offense produces. passing is nice, but if a QB can manage a rushing attack...

This would obviously serve to artificially inflate teams that had better RBs and better rushing attacks. You are basically "rewarding" a QB for having a good running attack. Which has nothing to do with how good the QB is. Just as a point, Stuabach is a perfect example. By your argument he is the 2nd best QB of all time. I'd venture to say the fact that he had Tony Dorsett in the backfield may have had something to do with the Cowboys success during that time. As a corallary, it also punishes guys who didn't have strong running games (like Marino at 16th...even though he holds several passing records.) Sorry, while I appreciate your attempt, there are serious flaws in the method. Leave the heavy lifting to Chase and Doug.

 

[dgreen]

Give the guy a break. It's not perfect, but it beats the W-L criteria usually used for QBs. I think it's an interesting idea to rank QBs based on the offensive success of the teams they led.

 

[Tau837]

There are so many flaws in your method it is difficult to begin.

Good effort, but it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. In addition to what has already been mentioned, it appears you are completely ignoring postseason success (or lack thereof). That is a huge flaw. Postseason success is why Joe Montana is the best QB of all time, and you have apparently completely ignored that here.

 

[DanFouts]

No Fouts??

Immediate disqualification......

 

[Dr. Octopus]

This would obviously serve to artificially inflate teams that had better RBs and better rushing attacks. You are basically "rewarding" a QB for having a good running attack. Which has nothing to do with how good the QB is. Just as a point, Stuabach is a perfect example. By your argument he is the 2nd best QB of all time. I'd venture to say the fact that he had Tony Dorsett in the backfield may have had something to do with the Cowboys success during that time. As a corallary, it also punishes guys who didn't have strong running games (like Marino at 16th...even though he holds several passing records.) Sorry, while I appreciate your attempt, there are serious flaws in the method. Leave the heavy lifting to Chase and Doug.

Plus teams that had excellant defenses (like those Cowboys) are going to help inflate offensive stats by giving the offense good field position, more time of possession, and by creating turnovers.

 

[TheChairman]

Unitas is too high

 

[Chase Stuart]

An offenses job is to score points, period. As long as the ball gets in the end-zone, it doesn't really matter how it happens. A QB is the head of the offense, and so when we try to compare QB's, we really should be looking at what the whole offense produces.really?

A team's job is to win games, period. As long as the team beats the other team, it doesn't really matter how it happens. A QB is the head of the team, so when we try to compare QBs, we really should be looking at what the whole team does.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

Hey look, Bradshaw rated too high again.

 

[moleculo]

An offenses job is to score points, period. As long as the ball gets in the end-zone, it doesn't really matter how it happens. A QB is the head of the offense, and so when we try to compare QB's, we really should be looking at what the whole offense produces. passing is nice, but if a QB can manage a rushing attack and keep a D off balance, that's important too. In the end, interceptions, YPA, TD passes, passing yards, etc are all unimportant. Only one stat helps a team win, and that's total points.

Interceptions help the other team score points. Holding those down helps a team win.Based on a completely fabricated premise, I can't go further. Sorry.

Interceptions are bad because they prevent you from scoring. I've never seen a team loose 1 int's to 3 ints. All statistical measures are a means to scoring. Yards are good because they get you to the end-zone. turnovers are bad becasue they take away an opprutunity from scoring.This is not a common premise, I'm merely presenting a different way of looking at things.

 

[Shtaym Syek]

An offenses job is to score points, period. As long as the ball gets in the end-zone, it doesn't really matter how it happens. A QB is the head of the offense, and so when we try to compare QB's, we really should be looking at what the whole offense produces. passing is nice, but if a QB can manage a rushing attack and keep a D off balance, that's important too. In the end, interceptions, YPA, TD passes, passing yards, etc are all unimportant. Only one stat helps a team win, and that's total points.

Interceptions help the other team score points. Holding those down helps a team win.Based on a completely fabricated premise, I can't go further. Sorry.

Interceptions are bad because they prevent you from scoring. I've never seen a team loose 1 int's to 3 ints.

They're also bad because they usually give the other team much better field position than they would've had originally.And some of them get run all the way back, adding to the other team's total.It's not black and white. Stop trying to make it that way.

 

[moleculo]

There are so many flaws in your method it is difficult to begin. I'll start at the end of this and work backwards.

I chose a cut-off of 8 years, as that seemed to maximize the number of HoF in the top 40.

This is a backwards way to look at stats. You chose an arbitrary cut off point to match your already-partially-arrived-at conclusion.Using the number of teams as a function of ranking the offense is also flawed, as the expansions (the recent ones) naturally weakend the talent pool, thus artificially changing the stats.

Well, the alternative is to simply add up all of a QB's stats, but this seems to favor a compiler. That's not what I'm looking for. This is what I started with, and Favre was so far ahead of everyone it was silly. Maybe that's a better way to judge a QB, but it makes it tough to evaluate guys mid-career, and that's really why I chose career average over culmulative stats.

so - why the cutoff for 8 years? Because without it, here's your top 10:

1 Grossman

2 Rivers

3 Robinson

4 Steve Young

5 Staubach

6 Isbell

7 Lamonica

8 Rodgers

9 Masterson

10 King

Finally, this statement (and assertion) is ridiculous:

A QB is the head of the offense, and so when we try to compare QB's, we really should be looking at what the whole offense produces. passing is nice, but if a QB can manage a rushing attack...

This would obviously serve to artificially inflate teams that had better RBs and better rushing attacks. You are basically "rewarding" a QB for having a good running attack. Which has nothing to do with how good the QB is. Just as a point, Stuabach is a perfect example. By your argument he is the 2nd best QB of all time. I'd venture to say the fact that he had Tony Dorsett in the backfield may have had something to do with the Cowboys success during that time. As a corallary, it also punishes guys who didn't have strong running games (like Marino at 16th...even though he holds several passing records.) Sorry, while I appreciate your attempt, there are serious flaws in the method. Leave the heavy lifting to Chase and Doug.

let's talk about great running backs for a litte bit.1 Emmit Smith: over his career, his offenses averaged 12th in the league in scoring. They were top 4 4 times. Coincidentally, he had HoF level QB and WR play too. Without Aikman, his offense averaged 31st. Of course, that was the tail end of his career. Just as Aikman benefitted from Emmitt, Emmitt benefitted from Aikman. Clearly, this was an example of how a RB and WR can help each other out and when a good RB and a good QB are on the same team, great things can happen.

2. Walter Payton: his offenses averaged 17th out of 28 for his career. He had only one season where he was on a top offense: 1985...coincidentally, that was McMahon's pro-bowl year.

3. Barry Sanders: Transcendental talent. offenses averaged 12th out of 28 or 30. He was on some very good offenses without good QB play. No QB was good enough to stick around long enough to capitolize on any statistical boost that Sanders contributed.

4. Curtis Martin: his offenses averaged 16th out of 30-32. He was on three good offenses his whole career - 1996, 1997, and 1998. Those teams were lead by Drew Bledsoe and Vinnie Testaverde. The year he led the league in rushing, his offense was ranked 17th out of 32.

5. Jerome Bettis: his offenses averaged 17th out of 28-32. He was on two top 10 offenses his whole career.

6. LaDanian Tomlinson: here is our first RB to be on an above average offense his whole career - his career offense averaged 8th out of 32. Of course, it helps that he has had Brees (10th all time per my rankings) and Rivers (would be #2 all time if not for the cutoff).

7. Eric Dickerson: his offenses averaged 17th out of 28. He only had one season of playing on a top 10 offense.

8. Tony dorsett: offenses averaged 7th out of 28. This is the only other RB of the all time career rushing leaders to spend a majority of his career on good offenses. Of course, the all time #2 QB was in his backfield for three of those years.

9. Jim Brown: offenses averaged 4thout of 12-14. Transcendental talent; normal rules do not apply for. However, like Sanders, no QB was good enough to stick around long enough to capitolize on any statistical boost that Brown contributed.

10. Marshall Faulk: offenses averaged 12th out of 28-32. Not bad. This is interesting though: Faulk with Warner averaged 1st. That's right - Faulk/Warner combo never failed to be the best offense in the league. Faulk w/o Warner = 16th out of 28-32.

The point I'm trying to make here is that great runningbacks, by themselves, do not make offenses great. Great QB's can and do make offenses great. If you combine a great runningback with a great QB, you've got an excellent offense.

 

[moleculo]

There are so many flaws in your method it is difficult to begin.

Good effort, but it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. In addition to what has already been mentioned, it appears you are completely ignoring postseason success (or lack thereof). That is a huge flaw. Postseason success is why Joe Montana is the best QB of all time, and you have apparently completely ignored that here.

yes, I am neglecting post-season success. Not sure how to account for that. Maybe I should re-title this as "top 20 regular season QB's".Again, this is meant to be a purely objective, statistical effort aimed primarily at comparing across eras. That would be a really tough thing to do, especially in earlier times when there was a much more limited playoff structure.

 

[moleculo]

Active QB's (no minimum # of seasons cutoff):

1 Rivers 91.3%

2 Rodgers 81.3%

3 Peyton Manning 80.6%

4 Brady 80.1%

5 Eli Manning 76.0%

6 Brees 74.3%

7 Favre 70.9%

8 Ryan 70.8%

9 McNabb 65.4%

10 Flacco 62.5%

11 Schaub 62.5%

12 Roethlisberger 62.1%

13 Vick 60.6%

14 Palmer 59.9%

15 Hasselbeck 56.0%

16 Cassel 53.1%

17 Sanchez 53.1%

18 Garrard 49.4%

19 Hill 42.2%

20 Kitna 41.8%

21 Cutler 39.8%

22 Jason Campbell 39.1%

23 Orton 38.3%

24 Collins 33.7%

25 Derek Anderson 33.3%

26 Henne 29.7%

27 Alex Smith 25.0%

28 Freeman 21.9%

29 Bradford 18.8%

30 Fitzpatrick 8.3%

31 McCoy 3.1%

32 Clausen 0.0%

 

[thatguy]

While it is flawed in some ways as has been pointed out, I think we can all agree that no method of ranking the all time greats across eras is without flaws... Is this method more flawed than others that have been used? Probably. But it is still interesting. I for one appreciate the different perspective and the effort that you put in.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

While it is flawed in some ways as has been pointed out, I think we can all agree that no method of ranking the all time greats across eras is without flaws... Is this method more flawed than others that have been used? Probably. But it is still interesting. I for one appreciate the different perspective and the effort that you put in.

Seriously, give the guy a break.

 

[moleculo]

some more on Staubach:

Played 9 seasons, primarily due to military obligation (played college ball @ Navy, served in Vietnam). In those 9 seasons, he led the Cowboys to the NFC championship game 6x, and the SB 4x. During this same span, his offenses were ranked in the top 5 5x.

The only offensive skill positions to make the pro-bowl (besides Staubach) was Calvin Hill (RB, 2x), Drew Pearson (WR, 3x), Tony Dorsett (RB, 1x), and Tony Hill (2x). Rayfield Wright (T) is the only other offensive teammate of Staubach's for a majority of his career that is in the HoF (Dorsett And Staubach were only together for three years).

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

When Joe Montanta is outside the top 5 Qb's, you go back to the drawing board in finding a new system to rate the QB position.

 

[DoubleG]

The point I'm trying to make here is that great runningbacks, by themselves, do not make offenses great. Great QB's can and do make offenses great. If you combine a great runningback with a great QB, you've got an excellent offense.

This I agree with - but that's ranking offenses, not QBs. The advantage of having a great QB and a great RB is that one takes the pressure off the other. Faulk/Warner is a perfect example (and probably the reason Warner is 7th in your original list, while guys like Favre, Marino and Elway are much further down). Using the formula you did, you ended up coming up with some of the best QB/RB combo's in history (go back and look at the original list and add the dominant RB and you'll see what I mean).

 

[dgreen]

When Joe Montanta is outside the top 5 Qb's, you go back to the drawing board in finding a new system to rate the QB position.

So a Top 5 Running QBs list should include Montana? My point is: It's just one way of looking at things. Montana is probably in everybody's subjective top 5. That doesn't mean he has to show up in the top 5 of every ranking that are inputs into those subjective rankings. There are a ton of QB-based rankings where Montana isn't in the top 5. He's 9th in career QB Rating. He's 9th in ANY/A. He's 40th in TD% and 18th in INT%. But, put them all together (and include postseason) and he's going to rise to the top.

 

[moleculo]

The point I'm trying to make here is that great runningbacks, by themselves, do not make offenses great. Great QB's can and do make offenses great. If you combine a great runningback with a great QB, you've got an excellent offense.

This I agree with - but that's ranking offenses, not QBs. The advantage of having a great QB and a great RB is that one takes the pressure off the other. Faulk/Warner is a perfect example (and probably the reason Warner is 7th in your original list, while guys like Favre, Marino and Elway are much further down). Using the formula you did, you ended up coming up with some of the best QB/RB combo's in history (go back and look at the original list and add the dominant RB and you'll see what I mean).

Steve Young: Ricky Watters, 3 yearsStaubach : Dorsett, 3 yearsPeyton Manning: Edgerinn James, 6 years, Addai 4 years.Luckman: only one man led his teams in rushing more than once.Brady: Corey Dillon, 3 yearsMontana: Craig, 5 yearsWarner: Faulk, 3 yearsGriese: Csonka, 5 yearsVan Brocklin: Towler, 3 yearsBrees: Tomlinson, 4 years (two of which the offense was ranked 16th and 20th)so, out of my top 10 QB's, none spent a majority of their career with HoF caliber RB's. The longest duration for a QB/RB combo was Manning/James, and I think we all can agree that Manning is a top QB w/ or w/o Edgerinn James.The fact of the matter is that all of the top guys here have played with a hodge-podge of RB's, just like the QB's we consider elite today have.ETA: Griese had Czonka for 5 years.

 

[dgreen]

The point I'm trying to make here is that great runningbacks, by themselves, do not make offenses great. Great QB's can and do make offenses great. If you combine a great runningback with a great QB, you've got an excellent offense.

This I agree with - but that's ranking offenses, not QBs. The advantage of having a great QB and a great RB is that one takes the pressure off the other. Faulk/Warner is a perfect example (and probably the reason Warner is 7th in your original list, while guys like Favre, Marino and Elway are much further down). Using the formula you did, you ended up coming up with some of the best QB/RB combo's in history (go back and look at the original list and add the dominant RB and you'll see what I mean).

1 Steve Young 82.9% - Watters was good, but not dominant.2 Staubach 82.8% - Dorsett for part of his career.3 Peyton Manning 80.6% - Edge was really, really good. Dominant? HOFer?4 Luckman 80.2% - Nothing that I'm aware of.5 Brady 80.1% - Nothing.6 Montana 78.9% - Craig = Watters7 Warner 75.4% - Faulk was dominant.8 Bob Griese 75.3% - Dominant running game.9 Van Brocklin 75.3% - Not that I'm aware of.10 Brees 74.3% - Nope.11 Favre 70.9% - Nope.12 Bradshaw 70.2% - Franco Harris = HOFer.13 Unitas 69.9% - Lenny Moore is a HOFer.14 Herber 69.8% - Um, no idea. Not sure about the running game. Don Hutson effect, I assume.15 Gannon 69.4% - Nope.16 Marino 68.6% - Nope.17 Elway 66.3% - Not until the end.18 McNabb 65.4% - Nope.19 Moon 64.7% - Nope.20 Layne 64.4% - Not that I'm aware of.

 

[Tau837]

When Joe Montanta is outside the top 5 Qb's, you go back to the drawing board in finding a new system to rate the QB position.

 

[moleculo]

When Joe Montanta is outside the top 5 Qb's, you go back to the drawing board in finding a new system to rate the QB position.

really?Find me a subjective measure that has Montana in the top 5.passes completed:1. Brett Favre (41) 6,300 1991-2010 4TM2. Dan Marino+ 4,967 1983-1999 mia3. Peyton Manning (34) 4,682 1998-2010 clt4. John Elway+ 4,123 1983-1998 den5. Warren Moon+ 3,988 1984-2000 4TMpassing yards1. Brett Favre (41) 71,838 1991-2010 4TM2. Dan Marino+ 61,361 1983-1999 mia3. Peyton Manning (34) 54,828 1998-2010 clt4. John Elway+ 51,475 1983-1998 den5. Warren Moon+ 49,325 1984-2000 4TMpassing TD's1. Brett Favre (41) 508 1991-2010 4TM2. Dan Marino+ 420 1983-1999 mia3. Peyton Manning (34) 399 1998-2010 clt4. Fran Tarkenton+ 342 1961-1978 2TM5. John Elway+ 300 1983-1998 denpasser rating1. Aaron Rodgers (27) 98.4 2005-2010 gnb2. Philip Rivers (29) 97.2 2004-2010 sdg3. Steve Young+ 96.8 1985-1999 2TM4. Tony Romo (30) 95.5 2004-2010 dal5. Tom Brady (33) 95.2 2000-2010 nwecareer yards/attempt1. Otto Graham+ 9.0 1946-1955 cle2. Sid Luckman+ 8.4 1939-1950 chi3. Norm Van Brocklin+ 8.2 1949-1960 2TM4. Tony Romo (30) 8.0 2004-2010 dal Ben Roethlisberger (28) 8.0 2004-2010 pit Philip Rivers (29) 8.0 2004-2010 sdg Steve Young+ 8.0 1985-1999 2TMAdjusted yards/attempt1. Aaron Rodgers (27) 8.08 2005-2010 gnb2. Philip Rivers (29) 8.05 2004-2010 sdg3. Steve Young+ 7.94 1985-1999 2TM4. Tony Romo (30) 7.84 2004-2010 dal5. Ben Roethlisberger (28) 7.68 2004-2010 pitcompletion percentage1. Chad Pennington (34) 66.0% 2000-2010 2TM2. Kurt Warner 65.5% 1998-2009 3TM3. Drew Brees (31) 65.2% 2001-2010 2TM4. Peyton Manning (34) 64.9% 1998-2010 clt5. Matt Schaub (29) 64.8% 2004-2010 2TMWhat else ya got?

 

[Tau837]

When Joe Montanta is outside the top 5 Qb's, you go back to the drawing board in finding a new system to rate the QB position.

really?Find me a subjective measure that has Montana in the top 5.passes completed:1. Brett Favre (41) 6,300 1991-2010 4TM2. Dan Marino+ 4,967 1983-1999 mia3. Peyton Manning (34) 4,682 1998-2010 clt4. John Elway+ 4,123 1983-1998 den5. Warren Moon+ 3,988 1984-2000 4TMpassing yards1. Brett Favre (41) 71,838 1991-2010 4TM2. Dan Marino+ 61,361 1983-1999 mia3. Peyton Manning (34) 54,828 1998-2010 clt4. John Elway+ 51,475 1983-1998 den5. Warren Moon+ 49,325 1984-2000 4TMpassing TD's1. Brett Favre (41) 508 1991-2010 4TM2. Dan Marino+ 420 1983-1999 mia3. Peyton Manning (34) 399 1998-2010 clt4. Fran Tarkenton+ 342 1961-1978 2TM5. John Elway+ 300 1983-1998 denpasser rating1. Aaron Rodgers (27) 98.4 2005-2010 gnb2. Philip Rivers (29) 97.2 2004-2010 sdg3. Steve Young+ 96.8 1985-1999 2TM4. Tony Romo (30) 95.5 2004-2010 dal5. Tom Brady (33) 95.2 2000-2010 nwecareer yards/attempt1. Otto Graham+ 9.0 1946-1955 cle2. Sid Luckman+ 8.4 1939-1950 chi3. Norm Van Brocklin+ 8.2 1949-1960 2TM4. Tony Romo (30) 8.0 2004-2010 dal Ben Roethlisberger (28) 8.0 2004-2010 pit Philip Rivers (29) 8.0 2004-2010 sdg Steve Young+ 8.0 1985-1999 2TMAdjusted yards/attempt1. Aaron Rodgers (27) 8.08 2005-2010 gnb2. Philip Rivers (29) 8.05 2004-2010 sdg3. Steve Young+ 7.94 1985-1999 2TM4. Tony Romo (30) 7.84 2004-2010 dal5. Ben Roethlisberger (28) 7.68 2004-2010 pitcompletion percentage1. Chad Pennington (34) 66.0% 2000-2010 2TM2. Kurt Warner 65.5% 1998-2009 3TM3. Drew Brees (31) 65.2% 2001-2010 2TM4. Peyton Manning (34) 64.9% 1998-2010 clt5. Matt Schaub (29) 64.8% 2004-2010 2TMWhat else ya got?

Check all of those for Super Bowls and for overall postseason performance and get back to me.

 

[moleculo]

Check all of those for Super Bowls and for overall postseason performance and get back to me.

Funny - I don't remember you holding such a candle for post-season performance in previous Terrell Davis = HoF threads.

 

[Tau837]

Check all of those for Super Bowls and for overall postseason performance and get back to me.

Funny - I don't remember you holding such a candle for post-season performance in previous Terrell Davis = HoF threads.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

An offenses job is to score points, period. As long as the ball gets in the end-zone, it doesn't really matter how it happens. A QB is the head of the offense, and so when we try to compare QB's, we really should be looking at what the whole offense produces.really?

A team's job is to win games, period. As long as the team beats the other team, it doesn't really matter how it happens. A QB is the head of the team, so when we try to compare QBs, we really should be looking at what the whole team does.

I agree that team wins need to be looked at, but to base it solely on that is just as flawed as moleculo's list imo. If you look back at history at some of the best QB's, there is a positive relationship with amount of Superbowl rings and the quality of that team's defense (and this is the case when essentially only taking into consideration teams led by "Great" QBs). A QB should not be given credit because his team has an excellent defense, nor should a QB have credit taken away from him because his team's defense was poor.

 

[moleculo]

Check all of those for Super Bowls and for overall postseason performance and get back to me.

Funny - I don't remember you holding such a candle for post-season performance in previous Terrell Davis = HoF threads.

Apples and oranges.

explain?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

List is missing Andrew Luck

 

[The Man With No Name]

Where's Otto Graham?

 

[Yellow Line is Unoffcial]

I was a HUGE Dolphin fan, but Griese ahead of Unitas means this list has NO credibility. Any era Unitas, Luckman and Graham are top 10 period.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Check all of those for Super Bowls and for overall postseason performance and get back to me.

Funny - I don't remember you holding such a candle for post-season performance in previous Terrell Davis = HoF threads.

Montana is arguably a top five regular season QB of all-time.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Starr, Tarkington, Fouts, they all miss the list?

 

[moleculo]

please let me rephrase my thesis:

[*]QB'ing goes beyond passing statistics, especially when trying to compare across eras.

[*]Teams win games by scoring more points than they give up. It's the offenses job to score points, it's the defenses job to prevent points from being scored. No points have ever been awarded for yards gained or turnovers - ultimately, these statistics are important only in that they lead to points being (or not being) scored.

[*]QB's are the de-facto leader of offenses.

[*]QB's are therefore responsible for scoring points, regardless of them being scored via air or ground.

[*]Therefore, to judge a QB's entire body of work, I pose that it's appropriate to examine how successful a QB's offense is in terms of points scored.

That's really the crux of what I wanted to get at. The data I presented reflects averages over a QB's career, which may or may not be valid. It seems to favor short, bright careers (such as Staubach, Warner), at the expense of longer careers that have more time closer to the league average (Favre, Elway, Marino).

Some statements that have not been verified, but would support (or refute) my thesis - i.e. areas for further study:

[*]good offenses are measured in terms of points scored.

[*]All good offenses have good QB's.

[*]All good QB's play in good offenses.

[*]Good RB's often do not always play in good offenses.

[*]good WR's often times do not always play in good offenses.

[*]there is no correlation between good offenses and good defenses.

[*]there is no correlation between good defenses and good QBs.

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

Where's Otto Graham?

I scanned the entire page and it wasn't until this post that someone brought up Otto.I knew the list was flawed as soon as I saw his name missing.If the methodology doesn't include Graham, then it's not successful.

 

[Tau837]

Check all of those for Super Bowls and for overall postseason performance and get back to me.

Funny - I don't remember you holding such a candle for post-season performance in previous Terrell Davis = HoF threads.

Apples and oranges.

explain?

1. You want to hijack your own thread? This isn't the point of the thread.2. My views on Terrell Davis are well documented in numerous Shark Pool threads. My views on Joe Montana are similarly well documented in numerous Shark Pool threads. Their careers are not similar. Hence, the apples and oranges comment.

 

[moleculo]

Where's Otto Graham?

Graham got the shaft because I didn't count AAFC stats. Sidebar: I think his #'s are inflated anyways. His Browns team was basically a collection of college all-stars who by-passed the NFL draft in favor of the big money in Cleveland as part of the AAFC, and then when that league folded, they entered the NFL together. Yes, he put up some good NFL #'s, but with his team full of HoFers and all-stars, he should have put up good #'s. Good on him for executing, though!

 

[Tau837]

Check all of those for Super Bowls and for overall postseason performance and get back to me.

Funny - I don't remember you holding such a candle for post-season performance in previous Terrell Davis = HoF threads.

Montana is arguably a top five regular season QB of all-time.

Exactly. Apples and oranges.

 

[moleculo]

Check all of those for Super Bowls and for overall postseason performance and get back to me.

Funny - I don't remember you holding such a candle for post-season performance in previous Terrell Davis = HoF threads.

Montana is arguably a top five regular season QB of all-time.

He's not really that far out of the top 5 - he's @ 6, and close behind Brady. He probably would have been ahead of Brady prior to 2010, FWIW. I'm not going to argue that he isn't a top 5 guy, I'm arguing that, based purely on stats put up, the offenses that he ran were less good than the offenses put up by Brady, Luckman, Staubach, Young, and Manning.

 

[Tau837]

Check all of those for Super Bowls and for overall postseason performance and get back to me.

Funny - I don't remember you holding such a candle for post-season performance in previous Terrell Davis = HoF threads.

Montana is arguably a top five regular season QB of all-time.

He's not really that far out of the top 5 - he's @ 6, and close behind Brady. He probably would have been ahead of Brady prior to 2010, FWIW. I'm not going to argue that he isn't a top 5 guy, I'm arguing that, based purely on stats put up, the offenses that he ran were less good than the offenses put up by Brady, Luckman, Staubach, Young, and Manning.

And then you factor in postseason play...

 

[moleculo]

Starr, Tarkington, Fouts, they all miss the list?

they were all in the 20-40 range. These guys were victims of playing on a few terribly medicore teams, which brought down their career averages. This is one flaw of this methodology. I don't really think that Starrs years playing under Phil Bengston should count against him, but Starr did QB a Packer team in 1970 that was 6-8, and 24th out of 26 teams in scoring.To compare to our modern QB heros, the worst Peyton Manning has ever done (outside of his rookie year) is 10-6, 17th out of 32 in scoring.I'd like to find some algorithm to capture a players best 8 years or something like that, but I'm not sure how to automate that in Excel. If I could do that, I think you would see Starr, Tarkington, Fouts rise up to the top.ETA: that would take care of the Montana problem too, because his last year in KC counts against him- where his team was 14th out of 28, decidedly mediocre,

 

[moleculo]

Check all of those for Super Bowls and for overall postseason performance and get back to me.

Funny - I don't remember you holding such a candle for post-season performance in previous Terrell Davis = HoF threads.

Montana is arguably a top five regular season QB of all-time.

He's not really that far out of the top 5 - he's @ 6, and close behind Brady. He probably would have been ahead of Brady prior to 2010, FWIW. I'm not going to argue that he isn't a top 5 guy, I'm arguing that, based purely on stats put up, the offenses that he ran were less good than the offenses put up by Brady, Luckman, Staubach, Young, and Manning.

And then you factor in postseason play...

indeed.

 

[moleculo]

Check all of those for Super Bowls and for overall postseason performance and get back to me.

Funny - I don't remember you holding such a candle for post-season performance in previous Terrell Davis = HoF threads.

Apples and oranges.

explain?

1. You want to hijack your own thread? This isn't the point of the thread.2. My views on Terrell Davis are well documented in numerous Shark Pool threads. My views on Joe Montana are similarly well documented in numerous Shark Pool threads. Their careers are not similar. Hence, the apples and oranges comment.

I'd rather not hijack this, but I will bookmark your emphasis on post-season play for the next HoF thread.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

First, the rankings:

=================

1 Steve Young 82.9%

2 Staubach 82.8%

3 Peyton Manning 80.6%

4 Luckman 80.2%

5 Brady 80.1%

6 Montana 78.9%

7 Warner 75.4%

8 Bob Griese 75.3%

9 Van Brocklin 75.3%

10 Brees 74.3%

11 Favre 70.9%

12 Bradshaw 70.2%

13 Unitas 69.9%

14 Herber 69.8%

15 Gannon 69.4%

16 Marino 68.6%

17 Elway 66.3%

18 McNabb 65.4%

19 Moon 64.7%

20 Layne 64.4%

================

Criteria: The % score represents how much better the QB's offense is relative to his contemporaries. This is based on a minimum of 8 seasons as starting QB.

================

An offenses job is to score points, period...

I'd say an offense's job is to score more points than the other team and hence win games period.In the above list this guy's name is a glaring ommision:

Otto Graham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legacy

During an astounding career in which the Browns compiled a 105-17-4 record, at the time of his retirement Graham's 86.6 career pass rating (combined AAFC and NFL) served as one of the best of all time, tossing 188 touchdowns in ten seasons of play.

In his final year of play, Graham won the Hickok Belt as top professional athlete of the year, and ten years later, he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. In 1999, he was ranked number 7 on The Sporting News' list of the 100 Greatest Football Players, the highest-ranking player who had played in the AAFC.

Otto Graham is considered by many sports historians to be one of the greatest winners in the history of professional sports, and by many football historians to be the greatest quarterback of all time...

Career highlights and awards

3× NFL Champion (1950, 1954, 1955)

4× AAFC Champion (1946, 1947, 1948, 1949)

5× Pro Bowl selection (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954)

9× All-Pro selection (1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955)

1× Second-team All-Pro selcetion (1950)

NFL 75th Anniversary Team

NFL 1950s All-Decade Team

3× UPI NFL MVP (1951, 53, 55)

Pro Bowl MVP (1950)

AAFC co-MVP (1948)

AAFC MVP (1947)

I can't take any list of greastest NFL QBs over eras seriously that doesn't have Graham ranked in the top five let alone missing on a top twenty list.

 

[Tau837]

Old post on Graham:

I have seen Graham mentioned in numerous threads in the Shark Pool about the best QBs of all time. I have mentioned him numerous times myself as being one of those who currently deserves consideration for third best ever, behind Montana and Unitas. However, while I think Graham deserves consideration, I do not think he is the best ever. Here is a recent post on this:

While I think Graham deserves to be in the conversation, here are some things to note about his case.1. He won 4 straight AAFC championships, but there were only between 7 and 9 teams in that league in those 4 seasons. He then went to 6 straight NFL championship games, with 13 teams in one season and 12 teams in the other 5 seasons.2. His team not only had one of the top passing games, but also consistently had one of the few best running games and defenses in the respective leagues over the 10 year period. It could be that his defense was the best overall throughout the 10 year period, but I didn't try to examine that to be sure.3. He played his entire career for HOF coach Paul Brown. From his Wiki page:- Brown is considered the "father of the modern offense," with many claiming that he ranks as one of if not the greatest of football coaches in history.- Brown put together the most extensive player recruitment network that had ever been seen in pro football at the time.- Brown ignored the gentlemen's agreement that barred African-American players from the league, adding future Pro Football Hall of Famers Marion Motley and Bill Willis.- He was the first to use intelligence tests to judge players, establish a game film library, instruct players in a classroom setting, use a radio transmitter to communicate with players on the field, and install face masks on helmets.- Brown's offense was the predecessor of the West Coast offense made famous by Bill Walsh, a protégé of Brown.4. He played with HOF C Frank Gatski, HOF T/K Lou Groza, and HOF E Dante Lavelli for his entire career. He had HOF G Bill Willis and HOF FB Marion Motley for his first 8 (of 10) seasons. He played his last 2 seasons (of 10) with HOF T Mike McCormack. He also had Mac Speedie for his first 7 seasons; Mac was All Pro in 6 of those 7 years, though he is not a HOFer.5. I have seen it posted in this forum that the best athletes in that era played offense. I have also seen it posted that defenses did not understand pursuit angles and did not run elaborate schemes as they came to do in later eras. I'm not sure how to verify these things.6. In Graham's last 10 seasons, Cleveland played in the title game 8 times without having to play any other playoff games. The other 2 times, Cleveland played one semifinal game. So Graham played in 10 title games but only 12 total playoff games.Now, I personally feel that Montana and Unitas are the top 2 QBs of all time, and I think that the next tier includes Elway, Baugh, Graham, Marino, and Favre as of today, in no particular order. I think Brady and Manning will end up belonging somewhere in that group, but I'm not sure how high yet.Anyway, I agree Graham is one of the best ever. However, there was no draft or salary cap and virtually no integration; he was surrounded by HOF talent; he faced lesser competition, both in terms of talent and number of teams; and he had a much easier road to title games. I think he has been overrated by some in this thread, and I think ultimately it will be justifiable to rank Brady higher than Graham.

I agree that no other QB will likely ever win 7 championships in 10 years, but that is due to the reasons cited at the end of that post, not due to Graham being head and shoulders above all others.

Not the best ever, but certainly deserving to be up there in the 6-15 range somewhere.

 

[moleculo]

Where's Otto Graham?

Graham got the shaft because I didn't count AAFC stats. Sidebar: I think his #'s are inflated anyways. His Browns team was basically a collection of college all-stars who by-passed the NFL draft in favor of the big money in Cleveland as part of the AAFC, and then when that league folded, they entered the NFL together. Yes, he put up some good NFL #'s, but with his team full of HoFers and all-stars, he should have put up good #'s. Good on him for executing, though!

As Graham comes up again, I'll note that if I set the cutoff to 6 seasons (i.e. I'll consider any QB who plays for 6 or more seasons), the top 10 looks like this:1 Steve Young 82.9%

2 Staubach 82.8%

3 Peyton Manning 80.6%

4 Luckman 80.2%

5 Brady 80.1%

6 Montana 78.9%

7 White 78.6%

8 Graham 76.8%

9 Green 76.7%

10 Eli Manning 76.0%

 

[DiStefano]

Interesting study, and has a lot going for it. Obviously, there is no one way of ranking players from different eras and have it be as clearcut as E=MC2. There are so many variables, including the defenses they faced, the other talent on their teams, etc. Generally speaking, people have tended to accord too much weight to Super Bowl rings won. I think your's is a good ranking, but it is always possible to argue it.