Who was the worst QB in NFL history? (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Mojo]

I'm giddy that Aikman is on the list twice.

Cowboys were bad and he was young. Aikman proved himself to be a clutch performer, and one of the all time greats.i'm going with ryan leaf. what a pud he was.

Agree with Leaf and I'd add David Carr and Akili Smith.Couln't disagree more with Aikman who is obscenely overrated. Yeah he was very good when they had a great team around him, but he didn't do squat when the supporting cast wasn't top notch.

you've got to be kidding. did you ever watch him play?

Yes, all of his seasons.I still remember the game where they showed that his W-L records as a starting QB his last 3 seasons was the same as backup Jason Garrett.

That's what I mean when I say he didn't do squat when he wasn't surrounded by major talent.

Even Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl when he was surrounded by a talented team. I ackowledge that Aikman was much better than Dilfer, but he's still obscenely overrated.

Why was he overrated? He is one of, if not the most accurate passers in the history of the NFL. He played on a run first team. Outside of Michael and Novacek, he had nobody. Emmitt holding the record for yards and TD's among RB's will put a damper in your season totals.

A great QB raises the team around him to a high level. Marino, Favre and Elway are recent examples. Even when their teams weren't that good, they performed at a high level and made everyone around them better.Aikman was a top QB when the Cowboys were the top team and had a good defense, great offensive line and great running back. But later when the cowboys weren't as strong, his play was mediocre. As I mentioned, I saw a stat that showed that his W-L record as a starter was the same as backup Jason Garrett the past few years, proving that he didn't make much of a difference on an average team. I still hear many say he is an all time great QB but he doesn't come close to the top QBs that I mentioned above. That's where I'm coming from withe overrated tag. He was very good during his peak but overall, just an above average QB. Roger Staubach was much better.

 

[RudeDog]

Some interesting data here. Surprised to see only one Bears QB on this list . Lots of Bills QBs, and highly drafted rookies or young QBs.

How about the worst QB in the league for every season since the merger?Quarterback			Year	Team	 ANY/A   RatingTrent Dilfer		   2007	SFO	  2.09	- 754Andrew Walter		  2006	OAK	  2.69	- 764Kyle Orton			 2005	CHI	  2.97	- 815A.J. Feeley			2004	MIA	  3.15	- 806Joey Harrington		2003	DET	  3.56	- 738David Carr			 2002	HOU	  3.07	- 942Jon Kitna			  2001	CIN	  3.57	- 791Ryan Leaf			  2000	SDG	  2.91	- 697Jake Plummer		   1999	ARI	  2.38	-1017Bobby Hoying		   1998	PHI	  1.43	- 916Kerry Collins		  1997	CAR	  2.67	- 888Dave M. Brown		  1996	NYG	  3.03	- 797Bubby Brister		  1995	NYJ	  1.53	- 660Billy Joe Tolliver	 1994	HOU	  3.24	- 473Mark Rypien			1993	WAS	  3.04	- 598Stan Gelbaugh		  1992	SEA	  2.10	- 700Jeff George			1991	IND	  3.68	- 650Troy Aikman			1990	DAL	  3.63	- 548Troy Aikman			1989	DAL	  2.80	- 508Vinny Testaverde	   1988	TAM	  3.01	- 815Mark Malone			1987	PIT	  2.68	- 674Jack Trudeau		   1986	IND	  2.87	- 785Joe Theismann		  1985	WAS	  2.43	- 677Joe Ferguson		   1984	BUF	  2.61	- 750Joe Ferguson		   1983	BUF	  3.48	- 597Joe Ferguson		   1982	BUF	  3.06	- 490Dan Pastorini		  1981	RAM	 -0.24	- 813Phil Simms			 1980	NYG	  3.16	- 530Jeff Komlo			 1979	DET	  2.33	- 781Steve DeBerg		   1978	SFO	  1.58	- 681Randy Hedberg		  1977	TAM	 -3.21	- 723Gary Marangi		   1976	BUF	  0.72	- 721Archie Manning		 1975	NOR	  1.20	- 972Bob Lee				1974	ATL	 -0.08	- 762Dan Pastorini		  1973	HOU	  1.42	- 732Jim Plunkett		   1972	NWE	  1.94	- 732Dennis Shaw			1971	BUF	  1.47	- 704Joe Kapp			   1970	BOS	  0.56	- 857

Funny things jump out at you sometimes......Check 1986 and 1991. Indy has the worst QB in the league with Jack Trudeau an Illinois boy, then 5 years later they repeat the feat with Jeff George, another Illini grad - LOL

 

[Kevin Ashcraft]

Why was he overrated? He is one of, if not the most accurate passers in the history of the NFL. He played on a run first team. Outside of Michael and Novacek, he had nobody.

Emmitt holding the record for yards and TD's among RB's will put a damper in your season totals.

Aikman's career TD-INT ratio is 165-147....I hardly think that fits your statement.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Why was he overrated? He is one of, if not the most accurate passers in the history of the NFL. He played on a run first team. Outside of Michael and Novacek, he had nobody.

Emmitt holding the record for yards and TD's among RB's will put a damper in your season totals.

Aikman's career TD-INT ratio is 165-147....I hardly think that fits your statement.

the career completion % leader board is kind of interesting: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/lead...perc_career.htmOther than Montana and Young, it looks like pretty much everyone else in the top-20 played the bulk of their career since Aikman retired. rule changes have had a big impact on completion % in recent years, but Aikman ranked among the top-2 in the league for 5 out of 6 years from 1991 to 1996. Cowboys probably didn't throw much in the red zone so his TD numbers are much lower than they could have been if he played on a passing team.

 

[Chairshot]

Why was he overrated? He is one of, if not the most accurate passers in the history of the NFL.

Not to completely derail this thread but...Just for the record, Aikman is 14th overall in all time career completion percentage:1. Chad Pennington 65.6% 2. Kurt Warner 65.1% 3. Steve Young 64.3% 4. Peyton Manning 64.2% 5. Carson Palmer 64.1% 6. Daunte Culpepper 63.8% 7. Drew Brees 63.7% 8. Marc Bulger 63.5% 9. Joe Montana 63.2% Ben Roethlisberger 63.2% 11. Tom Brady 63.0% 12. Brian Griese 62.9% 13. Brad Johnson 61.8% 14. Troy Aikman 61.5% Considering that there are more non-HOFer types on that list ahead of him then there are a HOFers, I don't know that completion % is a great way to judge if a player is over rated.

He played on a run first team. Outside of Michael and Novacek, he had nobody.

Isn't saying this kinda like saying, "if not for the AIDS virus running rampant through that chicks body, she seems like the perfect girl to date"? Michael Irvin is one of the best WRs of his era, if not the best. He's in the argument of best WR in the history of the game (Non-Jerry Rice Category). He had some unreal years during his prime. No one could cover him. Aikman went from a player in very real danger of losing his job over the first 2 years of his career (1989 and 1990) to a Pro Bolwer in this 3rd year (1991). Part of that, I'm sure, is because of his progression as a young player. But I don't think it's coincidence that 1991 was also the first year that Michael Irvin played 16 games.

Emmitt holding the record for yards and TD's among RB's will put a damper in your season totals.

Between 1991 and 1995, Aikman's prime years, Emmitt Smith was 3rd among all RBs in receptions and 9th in receiving yards (this is just amazing to me when you consider what he was doing rushing the ball, the argument for who is the best complete RB of all time should start and stop with Emmitt Smith, in my opinion). If anything, Smith helped Aikman's totals, rather then hindered him, especially when it come to completion percentage. Having one of the leagues best pass catching RBs usually helps a QBs completion percentage quite a bit.For the record, Jay Novacek was 2nd in completions and 4th in receiving yards among all TEs during the same time period. He was also going to the Pro Bowl every year. Easily a top 3 or 4 TE for that time period.So, in short, he has one of the best WRs of his time, one of the best pass catching RBs of his time, one of the best pass catching TEs of his time and one of the best offensive lines (career 5.21 sack %, during the big years it was routinely in the mid 3%) of his time.Aikman was a fine player, I think. But compare his career with Phil Simms (who I think we can all agree had FAR less weapons on offense then Aikman and was in just as much, if not more, of a run first offense):Aikman:165 games4715 passing attempts61.5% completion percentage32942 passing yards165 TDs141 INTs81.6 QB rating5.2% sack percentageSimms:164 games4647 passing attempts55.4% completion percentage33463 passing yards199 TDs157 INTs78.5 QB rating9.3% sack percentageSimms basically did what Aikman did (except for completion percentage) while only having 3 1000 yard receivers over his *entire* 14 season career (and only a single 1100 yard receiver) AND while getting sacked almost twice as much (showing how much better the Cowboys O line was then the Giants). With all those weapons Aikman had, he didn't put up that much better numbers; some of his numbers were worse.I'm not saying Aikman was a bad player at all. But I don't think calling him vastly over rated is that crazy. I think he was good, but not nearly as good as his legend makes him out to be. Unless we all want to start talking about Phil Simms for the Hall of Fame....

 

[Chase Stuart]

Why was he overrated? He is one of, if not the most accurate passers in the history of the NFL.

Not to completely derail this thread but...Just for the record, Aikman is 14th overall in all time career completion percentage:

1. Chad Pennington 65.6%

2. Kurt Warner 65.1%

3. Steve Young 64.3%

4. Peyton Manning 64.2%

5. Carson Palmer 64.1%

6. Daunte Culpepper 63.8%

7. Drew Brees 63.7%

8. Marc Bulger 63.5%

9. Joe Montana 63.2%

Ben Roethlisberger 63.2%

11. Tom Brady 63.0%

12. Brian Griese 62.9%

13. Brad Johnson 61.8%

14. Troy Aikman 61.5%

Considering that there are more non-HOFer types on that list ahead of him then there are a HOFers, I don't know that completion % is a great way to judge if a player is over rated.

He played on a run first team. Outside of Michael and Novacek, he had nobody.

Isn't saying this kinda like saying, "if not for the AIDS virus running rampant through that chicks body, she seems like the perfect girl to date"? Michael Irvin is one of the best WRs of his era, if not the best. He's in the argument of best WR in the history of the game (Non-Jerry Rice Category). He had some unreal years during his prime. No one could cover him. Aikman went from a player in very real danger of losing his job over the first 2 years of his career (1989 and 1990) to a Pro Bolwer in this 3rd year (1991). Part of that, I'm sure, is because of his progression as a young player. But I don't think it's coincidence that 1991 was also the first year that Michael Irvin played 16 games.

Emmitt holding the record for yards and TD's among RB's will put a damper in your season totals.

Between 1991 and 1995, Aikman's prime years, Emmitt Smith was 3rd among all RBs in receptions and 9th in receiving yards (this is just amazing to me when you consider what he was doing rushing the ball, the argument for who is the best complete RB of all time should start and stop with Emmitt Smith, in my opinion). If anything, Smith helped Aikman's totals, rather then hindered him, especially when it come to completion percentage. Having one of the leagues best pass catching RBs usually helps a QBs completion percentage quite a bit.For the record, Jay Novacek was 2nd in completions and 4th in receiving yards among all TEs during the same time period. He was also going to the Pro Bowl every year. Easily a top 3 or 4 TE for that time period.

So, in short, he has one of the best WRs of his time, one of the best pass catching RBs of his time, one of the best pass catching TEs of his time and one of the best offensive lines (career 5.21 sack %, during the big years it was routinely in the mid 3%) of his time.

Aikman was a fine player, I think. But compare his career with Phil Simms (who I think we can all agree had FAR less weapons on offense then Aikman and was in just as much, if not more, of a run first offense):

Aikman:

165 games

4715 passing attempts

61.5% completion percentage

32942 passing yards

165 TDs

141 INTs

81.6 QB rating

5.2% sack percentage

Simms:

164 games

4647 passing attempts

55.4% completion percentage

33463 passing yards

199 TDs

157 INTs

78.5 QB rating

9.3% sack percentage

Simms basically did what Aikman did (except for completion percentage) while only having 3 1000 yard receivers over his *entire* 14 season career (and only a single 1100 yard receiver) AND while getting sacked almost twice as much (showing how much better the Cowboys O line was then the Giants). With all those weapons Aikman had, he didn't put up that much better numbers; some of his numbers were worse.

I'm not saying Aikman was a bad player at all. But I don't think calling him vastly over rated is that crazy. I think he was good, but not nearly as good as his legend makes him out to be.

Unless we all want to start talking about Phil Simms for the Hall of Fame....

One note, though. Simms' sack percentage should be considered a pretty big knock against him. And Aikman did have three terrific years every year Dallas won the Super Bowl. I've got Aikman 37th, and Simms 60th, on the all-time list.

 

[Chairshot]

One note, though. Simms' sack percentage should be considered a pretty big knock against him. And Aikman did have three terrific years every year Dallas won the Super Bowl. I've got Aikman 37th, and Simms 56th, on the all-time list.

Calling it a knock certainly could be a fair way to look at it. Getting deeper into Simms career it seems like he was often asked to pass the long ball after the Giants pounded away with the run game, behind an often suspect O line. So, if he was throwing down field a lot, it might stand to reason that he had to hold the ball longer (especially considering the horrendous WRs he had to throw to) and therefore take more sacks. But I haven't looked into it deep enough yet to say that was the case for sure.Plus, I personally think that a lot of those Giants O lines just weren't that good at pass pro. Many excellent run blocking units, but a different story when the ball was in the air.

I know this is a futile argument, but I've always though that if Simms and Aikman had switched places, Simms would easily have put up Aikman's numbers. Personally, I think he would have exceeded Aikman's numbers by quite a bit.

I think that Simms probably was a better QB then his numbers suggested. I think he was asked to do things that Aikman wasn't asked to do and that if he had the pass catching and O line talent that Aikman had you would have seen his completion percentage skyrocket (as well as his other numbers).

No way to prove it all, but he guessing is a fun game.

 

[Chase Stuart]

One note, though. Simms' sack percentage should be considered a pretty big knock against him. And Aikman did have three terrific years every year Dallas won the Super Bowl. I've got Aikman 37th, and Simms 60th, on the all-time list.

Calling it a knock certainly could be a fair way to look at it. Getting deeper into Simms career it seems like he was often asked to pass the long ball after the Giants pounded away with the run game, behind an often suspect O line. So, if he was throwing down field a lot, it might stand to reason that he had to hold the ball longer (especially considering the horrendous WRs he had to throw to) and therefore take more sacks. But I haven't looked into it deep enough yet to say that was the case for sure.Plus, I personally think that a lot of those Giants O lines just weren't that good at pass pro. Many excellent run blocking units, but a different story when the ball was in the air.

I know this is a futile argument, but I've always though that if Simms and Aikman had switched places, Simms would easily have put up Aikman's numbers. Personally, I think he would have exceeded Aikman's numbers by quite a bit.

I think that Simms probably was a better QB then his numbers suggested. I think he was asked to do things that Aikman wasn't asked to do and that if he had the pass catching and O line talent that Aikman had you would have seen his completion percentage skyrocket (as well as his other numbers).

No way to prove it all, but he guessing is a fun game.

You're probably right. Simms gained no advantage from playing half his games at the Meadowlands, either.

 

[Chairshot]

You're probably right. Simms gained no advantage from playing half his games at the Meadowlands, either.

You know, that's a real good point, too. One I hadn't thought of from a career point of view. It would be great to see home/road splits for Giants QBs over the years to see how much Giants Stadium effects QB play. Better yet it would be great to see all QB ratings at Giants Stadium versus the league average.

 

[Steady Mooobin]

Career completion percentage is a joke. Stat nerds strike again.

 

[AussieOyOyOy]

One thing that's impressive about Aikman's comp % is that the deep out was such a staple of the offense. Yes, Irvin was a great WR to have for that throw, but it's still a tough one to make consistently. He also didn't throw too many of the drags and hitches that boost comp %.

I am far from an Aikman fanboy. He had virtually no improvisational skills, and if the play broke down, it was over. He also lacked a bit of touch on the deep balls. But when he was in rhythm, he could fire the mid-range passes as well as anyone. He had the perfect balance of velocity and trajectory. There are a lotta guys that can throw frozen ropes. But not too many can keep the velocity up while putting enough air underneath the ball to keep it out of reach of the first and second levels.

When plays worked out well, he displayed tremendous accuracy and skill. When they didn't, he was pretty bad.

 

[Chase Stuart]

One thing that's impressive about Aikman's comp % is that the deep out was such a staple of the offense. Yes, Irvin was a great WR to have for that throw, but it's still a tough one to make consistently. He also didn't throw too many of the drags and hitches that boost comp %.I am far from an Aikman fanboy. He had virtually no improvisational skills, and if the play broke down, it was over. He also lacked a bit of touch on the deep balls. But when he was in rhythm, he could fire the mid-range passes as well as anyone. He had the perfect balance of velocity and trajectory. There are a lotta guys that can throw frozen ropes. But not too many can keep the velocity up while putting enough air underneath the ball to keep it out of reach of the first and second levels.When plays worked out well, he displayed tremendous accuracy and skill. When they didn't, he was pretty bad.

The highest Aikman ever ranked in his career in yards per compeltion -- and it was in 1998 -- was tenth. You can say a lot of positive things about Aikman, but he absolutely wasn't completing a lot of deep passes.

 

[AussieOyOyOy]

One thing that's impressive about Aikman's comp % is that the deep out was such a staple of the offense. Yes, Irvin was a great WR to have for that throw, but it's still a tough one to make consistently. He also didn't throw too many of the drags and hitches that boost comp %.I am far from an Aikman fanboy. He had virtually no improvisational skills, and if the play broke down, it was over. He also lacked a bit of touch on the deep balls. But when he was in rhythm, he could fire the mid-range passes as well as anyone. He had the perfect balance of velocity and trajectory. There are a lotta guys that can throw frozen ropes. But not too many can keep the velocity up while putting enough air underneath the ball to keep it out of reach of the first and second levels.When plays worked out well, he displayed tremendous accuracy and skill. When they didn't, he was pretty bad.

The highest Aikman ever ranked in his career in yards per compeltion -- and it was in 1998 -- was tenth. You can say a lot of positive things about Aikman, but he absolutely wasn't completing a lot of deep passes.

I was criticizing his deep passing. He didn't get the the 60-70 yard plays. I was praising his skill in the 15-20 yard range. YPC is greatly impacted by the bombs.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

One thing that's impressive about Aikman's comp % is that the deep out was such a staple of the offense. Yes, Irvin was a great WR to have for that throw, but it's still a tough one to make consistently. He also didn't throw too many of the drags and hitches that boost comp %.I am far from an Aikman fanboy. He had virtually no improvisational skills, and if the play broke down, it was over. He also lacked a bit of touch on the deep balls. But when he was in rhythm, he could fire the mid-range passes as well as anyone. He had the perfect balance of velocity and trajectory. There are a lotta guys that can throw frozen ropes. But not too many can keep the velocity up while putting enough air underneath the ball to keep it out of reach of the first and second levels.When plays worked out well, he displayed tremendous accuracy and skill. When they didn't, he was pretty bad.

The highest Aikman ever ranked in his career in yards per compeltion -- and it was in 1998 -- was tenth. You can say a lot of positive things about Aikman, but he absolutely wasn't completing a lot of deep passes.

how much of that is because the Cowboys never had any great RAC weapons in their offense? Without looking up any stats, I'd imagine the Cowboys during Aikman's time ranked very low in that category. However, a QB like Steve Young who relied heavily on slants and intermediate routes to Rice that he would break for big gains would wind up with a high yards per completion.That being said, I don't remember Aikman throwing a lot of deep passes after Alvin Harper left either. He mostly worked the short and intermediate parts of the field. His biggest strength was his accuracy though. That's hard to dispute.