Content Post All-Time QB Rankings / QB Hall of Fame Monitor

[Tony2046]

 

[Zarozzor]

I have something I'll be working on most of the day and will post here when I'm finished.

 

[BobDigital]

are they pinned to kickers who kick a game winning FG?

are they pinned to the '85 bears defense?

i know they ARE pinned to QB's......i just don't agree to it

are their times and teams where the QB bears more of the responsibility for the success.....sure.....just like there are times they bear too much of the blame, or really DIDN'T contribute any more to the win than any other player, or even less

but was trent dilfer's record really 10-1 with the Ravens in 2000.......or did the Ravens win 10 of 11 with Dilfer in at QB........

it's just a hard number to quantify, and to attribute wins as a stat to a QB imho doesn't really hold up that well

you HAVE to use team success and playoff success as a means to quantify who's the greatest, I guess...........but to simply say QB Y's record was 100-82 is a gross over simplification of the game

hell, i've seen very, very compelling arguments why wins shouldn't be a starting pitcher stat, and they have a way, way more influence on the outcome of a game than a QB does

just a pet peeve of mine.........doesn't take away from a very interesting tool

I'll take a stab at your post. Do I think wins or losses should be pinned on a kicker with a game deciding kick? Yes. Absolutely. Those are huge kicks and they matter. Even if a kicker has the best FG % of all time if he's historically bad at game winning kicks I wouldn't want him on my team unless there were extenuating circumstances. Thankfully there usually aren't too many kicks like that. Does that me the entire win or lose depended on the kicker? Of course not, but that info is worth tracking most people would agree.

When it comes to pinning wins or losses on a QB or unit it's very important to keep sample size in mind. One win or lose can be deceiving. A full season or 100 is more reliable.

As far as being pinned on the D? Absolutely. The D as a unit have more control than the QB. That isn't to say your D is the reason you do win automatically. But if your team loses more than it wins its fair to question if your D is as good as you think.

When it comes to QBs it seems clear one season isn't enough to judge. You need at least a few seasons get a good picture. The more the better. Win % after 50 so games tends to start be revealing for a QB. If you were to look at one stat for QBs to make a top 20 list, I dont think any one stat would be better. That isn't to say it's the only thing you should look at. You can't ever just look at any one thing. But the strong correlation with great QBs and winning is impossible to ignore.

 

[venecol]

Nice work @Ice_Ice_Brady but without Chris Simms on the list, back to the drawing board. Lol

 

[Zarozzor]

I went through and looked at quarterbacks records against winning teams. Mainly the guys who have retired since there is already data for the current guys.

Otto Graham numbers are NFL only and any ties are not included. All numbers are regular season only. Active players have * next to their name.


Chronological Order
Otto Graham: 16-11 .593%
Bobby Layne: 25-33 .431%
Bart Starr: 33-36 .478%
Johnny Unitas: 34-43 .442%
Len Dawson: 32-39 .451%
Roger Staubach: 26-21 .553%
Terry Bradshaw: 34-35 .493%
Joe Montana: 44-25 .638%
John Elway: 46-53 .465%
Dan Marino: 52-63 .452%
Steve Young: 26-27 .491%
Troy Aikman: 30-45 .400%
Brett Favre: 58-63 .479%
Peyton Manning: 61-57 .517%
Kurt Warner: 15-26 .366%
*Tom Brady: 74-47 .611%
*Drew Brees: 53-68 .438%
*Ben Roethlisberger: 57-41 .582%
*Aaron Rodgers: 36-43 .456%
*Russell Wilson 32-27 .542%

Ranked by Win %
1. Joe Montana - .638%
2. *Tom Brady - .611%
3. Otto Graham - .593%
4. *Ben Roethlisberger - .582%
5. Roger Staubach - .553%
6. *Russell Wilson - .542%
7. Peyton Manning - .517%
8. Terry Bradshaw - .493%
9. Steve Young - .491%
10. Brett Favre - .479%
11. Bart Starr .478%
12. John Elway - .465%
13. *Aaron Rodgers - .456%
14. Dan Marino - .452%
15. Len Dawson .451%
16. Johnny Unitas - .442%
17. *Drew Brees - .438%
18. Bobby Layne .431%
19. Troy Aikman - .400%
20. Kurt Warner - .366%

 

[stinkypete]

Yikes. No. Top 3? No.

Are you serious?

Manning is 5th all time in regular season winning percentage. 2nd all time in regular season wins. Tied for 3rd in playoff wins. Tied for 4th in Super Bowl appearances. Tied for 2nd in Super Bowl wins. 3rd in regular season passing yards and TDs. He has 5 MVP awards. And he played with bottom 1/3 defenses for half his career. He did it in a 32 team league, with competition that included Brady, Favre, Warner, Rodgers, Roethlisburger, Wilson, Brees - all top 20 - 30 all time QBs. What the hell more does the man need to do?

This is akin to chanting "Yankees suck" out of jealously. I hate Derek Jeter too, but I'm willing to acknowledge that he's the best baseball player I've ever watched in my lifetime.

Peyton Manning is the second greatest QB of all time. I will accept an argument that he is #3. This opinion would be wrong, but I'll accept it. Any lower, you're gaslighting, ignoring objective fact in favor or personal bias.

 

[Zarozzor]

I also think an important trait for quarterbacks is can they win on the road?


Road Win %
1. Otto Graham - .771%
2. Joe Montana - .753%
3. *Tom Brady - .693%
4. Roger Staubach - .655%
5. Peyton Manning - .639%
6. *Ben Roethlisberger - .609%
7. *Russell Wilson - .606%
8. Johnny Unitas - .596%
9. Len Dawson - .578%
10. Bart Starr - .566%
11. *Drew Brees - .556%
12. Bob Griese - .549%
13. Dan Marino - .542%
14. Steve Young - .535%
15. *Aaron Rodgers - .531%
16. Bobby Layne - .521%
17. Jim Kelly - .518%
18. Kurt Warner - .508%
19. Terry Bradshaw - .506%
20. Phillip Rivers - .500%
21. Brett Favre - .490%
22. Fran Tarkenton - .487%
23. Troy Aikman - .475%
24. Norm Van Brocklin - .475%
25. John Elway - .473%

 

[Doctor DDS]

Are you serious?

Manning is 5th all time in regular season winning percentage. 2nd all time in regular season wins. Tied for 3rd in playoff wins. Tied for 4th in Super Bowl appearances. Tied for 2nd in Super Bowl wins. 3rd in regular season passing yards and TDs. He has 5 MVP awards. And he played with bottom 1/3 defenses for half his career. He did it in a 32 team league, with competition that included Brady, Favre, Warner, Rodgers, Roethlisburger, Wilson, Brees - all top 20 - 30 all time QBs. What the hell more does the man need to do?

This is akin to chanting "Yankees suck" out of jealously. I hate Derek Jeter too, but I'm willing to acknowledge that he's the best baseball player I've ever watched in my lifetime.

Peyton Manning is the second greatest QB of all time. I will accept an argument that he is #3. This opinion would be wrong, but I'll accept it. Any lower, you're gaslighting, ignoring objective fact in favor or personal bias.

I have Manning in the top 10 but not top 5 due to his post season failures. He was carried to both of his Super Bowls and his 9 one and dones hurts him. Absolutely a tremendous regular season QB but came up small too often in the big moments.

Derek Jeter is the best baseball player you saw in your lifetime? Certainly worthy of 1st ballot HOF but he was never close to the best player in the league at any point in his career. Was a very good hitter but a below average defensive shortstop. Played on some great teams and had several clutch moments but his average 162 game season was .310 15 77.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I went through and looked at quarterbacks records against winning teams. Mainly the guys who have retired since there is already data for the current guys.

Otto Graham numbers are NFL only and any ties are not included. All numbers are regular season only. Active players have * next to their name.


Chronological Order
Otto Graham: 16-11 .593%
Bobby Layne: 25-33 .431%
Bart Starr: 33-36 .478%
Johnny Unitas: 34-43 .442%
Len Dawson: 32-39 .451%
Roger Staubach: 26-21 .553%
Terry Bradshaw: 34-35 .493%
Joe Montana: 44-25 .638%
John Elway: 46-53 .465%
Dan Marino: 52-63 .452%
Steve Young: 26-27 .491%
Troy Aikman: 30-45 .400%
Brett Favre: 58-63 .479%
Peyton Manning: 61-57 .517%
Kurt Warner: 15-26 .366%
*Tom Brady: 74-47 .611%
*Drew Brees: 53-68 .438%
*Ben Roethlisberger: 57-41 .582%
*Aaron Rodgers: 36-43 .456%
*Russell Wilson 32-27 .542%

Ranked by Win %
1. Joe Montana - .638%
2. *Tom Brady - .611%
3. Otto Graham - .593%
4. *Ben Roethlisberger - .582%
5. Roger Staubach - .553%
6. *Russell Wilson - .542%
7. Peyton Manning - .517%
8. Terry Bradshaw - .493%
9. Steve Young - .491%
10. Brett Favre - .479%
11. Bart Starr .478%
12. John Elway - .465%
13. *Aaron Rodgers - .456%
14. Dan Marino - .452%
15. Len Dawson .451%
16. Johnny Unitas - .442%
17. *Drew Brees - .438%
18. Bobby Layne .431%
19. Troy Aikman - .400%
20. Kurt Warner - .366%

I also think an important trait for quarterbacks is can they win on the road?


Road Win %
1. Otto Graham - .771%
2. Joe Montana - .753%
3. *Tom Brady - .693%
4. Roger Staubach - .655%
5. Peyton Manning - .639%
6. *Ben Roethlisberger - .609%
7. *Russell Wilson - .606%
8. Johnny Unitas - .596%
9. Len Dawson - .578%
10. Bart Starr - .566%
11. *Drew Brees - .556%
12. Bob Griese - .549%
13. Dan Marino - .542%
14. Steve Young - .535%
15. *Aaron Rodgers - .531%
16. Bobby Layne - .521%
17. Jim Kelly - .518%
18. Kurt Warner - .508%
19. Terry Bradshaw - .506%
20. Phillip Rivers - .500%
21. Brett Favre - .490%
22. Fran Tarkenton - .487%
23. Troy Aikman - .475%
24. Norm Van Brocklin - .475%
25. John Elway - .473%

Wow - these are awesome stats and must have taken some time to compile. I think the Win/Loss differential, or some variation of both wins & win %, paints quite a picture here and really matches up with what we consider clutch play in big games:

*Tom Brady: 27
Joe Montana: 19
Otto Graham, 5
Roger Staubach, 5
*Russell Wilson 5
Terry Bradshaw: -1
Steve Young: -1
Brett Favre: -5
Peyton Manning: 4
*Ben Roethlisberger: -4
Len Dawson, -7
*Aaron Rodgers: -7
John Elway: -7
Bart Starr, -8
Bobby Layne:, -8
Dan Marino: -9
Johnny Unitas, -9
Kurt Warner: -11
*Drew Brees: -15
Troy Aikman: -15

I wonder how much these results are already baked into the overall win percentage, or perhaps some of this is the reason for that win percentage total. Looking down the list, I do see a lot of correlation: the guys winning at .700+ are clustered near the top, .600.699 in that large middle class...and the bottom three are Warner (.57), Brees (.60), and Aikman (.57). So I tend to think that "clutch" and "good" are pretty well correlated. I see some outliers, though: of course, Manning is the sore thumb.

Every advanced stat like this shows Aikman is closer to Eli Manning than Joe Montana. I know this about Brees, but no one associates Brees with tremendous clutch play either. Aikman just rode a four-year wave in Dallas, whereas Eli got two separate lightning in a bottle runs. Other than that, two mediocre QBs who by some measures were not even mediocre.

 

[stinkypete]

I have Manning in the top 10 but not top 5 due to his post season failures. He was carried to both of his Super Bowls and his 9 one and dones hurts him. Absolutely a tremendous regular season QB but came up small too often in the big moments.

Derek Jeter is the best baseball player you saw in your lifetime? Certainly worthy of 1st ballot HOF but he was never close to the best player in the league at any point in his career. Was a very good hitter but a below average defensive shortstop. Played on some great teams and had several clutch moments but his average 162 game season was .310 15 77.

We need to respect the additional work needed to even reach a league championship game or Super Bowl. Before 1967, all you needed to do to reach the championship game was win your conference. You only needed to win once to be champion. Each playoff expansion has made it more difficult for a team to become champion.

For all of these old timers, regular season domination meant a ticket to the big game. Yet we discount Manning's legacy as being a "regular season QB". Today's QB have to dominate the regular season AND win 2 -3 additional games to make it to Super Bowl. Today's QBs simply do not have the luxury that the old timers did, when dynasties were the norm in a small league, and being the best was an automatic ticket to the big dance.

Also, we tend to place more negative bias on a Super Bowl loss than a playoff loss. Why is this? The "Joe Montana went 4 - 0 in the Super Bowl argument" is full of holes. Nobody mentions that he once lost to an 8-7-1 Vikings team as a #1 seed, or that he lost three different times in the playoffs to the Giants. In one of these games his stat line was 8/15, 98 yds, 0TD, 2INT. Yet we forgive this, because we treat a championship loss as a greater scar than a divisional round loss.

If this argument is correct, then Brady's comeback in San Diego is meaningless, because he lost the AFCC game a week later. If this argument is correct, the 2007 Patriots would be historically better had they saved us the heartbreak and just blown their divisional round game against Jacksonville. Hell, let's just wish away all those playoff wins in 2005, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017, since clearly they are just tainting the GOAT's legacy.

 

[Deus Irae]

Peyton Manning is the second greatest QB of all time.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Are you serious?

Manning is 5th all time in regular season winning percentage. 2nd all time in regular season wins. Tied for 3rd in playoff wins. Tied for 4th in Super Bowl appearances. Tied for 2nd in Super Bowl wins. 3rd in regular season passing yards and TDs. He has 5 MVP awards. And he played with bottom 1/3 defenses for half his career. He did it in a 32 team league, with competition that included Brady, Favre, Warner, Rodgers, Roethlisburger, Wilson, Brees - all top 20 - 30 all time QBs. What the hell more does the man need to do?

This is akin to chanting "Yankees suck" out of jealously. I hate Derek Jeter too, but I'm willing to acknowledge that he's the best baseball player I've ever watched in my lifetime.

Peyton Manning is the second greatest QB of all time. I will accept an argument that he is #3. This opinion would be wrong, but I'll accept it. Any lower, you're gaslighting, ignoring objective fact in favor or personal bias.

I have Manning in the top 10 but not top 5 due to his post season failures. He was carried to both of his Super Bowls and his 9 one and dones hurts him. Absolutely a tremendous regular season QB but came up small too often in the big moments.

Derek Jeter is the best baseball player you saw in your lifetime? Certainly worthy of 1st ballot HOF but he was never close to the best player in the league at any point in his career. Was a very good hitter but a below average defensive shortstop. Played on some great teams and had several clutch moments but his average 162 game season was .310 15 77.

This is a really polaziring one, no doubt. I don't think Manning is guaranteed a top 3 spot but agree there is quite a bit of bias. It's very hard to to keep Manning outside of the top 5/6 without becoming inconsistent about greatness. I don't think Manning is clearly ahead of Montana, Graham, Starr, or Unitas.

 

[venecol]

I went through and looked at quarterbacks records against winning teams. Mainly the guys who have retired since there is already data for the current guys.

Otto Graham numbers are NFL only and any ties are not included. All numbers are regular season only. Active players have * next to their name.


Chronological Order
Otto Graham: 16-11 .593%
Bobby Layne: 25-33 .431%
Bart Starr: 33-36 .478%
Johnny Unitas: 34-43 .442%
Len Dawson: 32-39 .451%
Roger Staubach: 26-21 .553%
Terry Bradshaw: 34-35 .493%
Joe Montana: 44-25 .638%
John Elway: 46-53 .465%
Dan Marino: 52-63 .452%
Steve Young: 26-27 .491%
Troy Aikman: 30-45 .400%
Brett Favre: 58-63 .479%
Peyton Manning: 61-57 .517%
Kurt Warner: 15-26 .366%
*Tom Brady: 74-47 .611%
*Drew Brees: 53-68 .438%
*Ben Roethlisberger: 57-41 .582%
*Aaron Rodgers: 36-43 .456%
*Russell Wilson 32-27 .542%

Ranked by Win %
1. Joe Montana - .638%
2. *Tom Brady - .611%
3. Otto Graham - .593%
4. *Ben Roethlisberger - .582%
5. Roger Staubach - .553%
6. *Russell Wilson - .542%
7. Peyton Manning - .517%
8. Terry Bradshaw - .493%
9. Steve Young - .491%
10. Brett Favre - .479%
11. Bart Starr .478%
12. John Elway - .465%
13. *Aaron Rodgers - .456%
14. Dan Marino - .452%
15. Len Dawson .451%
16. Johnny Unitas - .442%
17. *Drew Brees - .438%
18. Bobby Layne .431%
19. Troy Aikman - .400%
20. Kurt Warner - .366%

Before TFB was acknowledged by almost everyone (but Rob) as the GOAT, it was pretty universally believed that Montana was the goat.

That's why Montana should be #2 behind Brady, then Graham, and then "maybe" PM. There's no way PM is #3!

 

[Deus Irae]

I have Manning in the top 10 but not top 5 due to his post season failures. He was carried to both of his Super Bowls and his 9 one and dones hurts him. Absolutely a tremendous regular season QB but came up small too often in the big moments.

Derek Jeter is the best baseball player you saw in your lifetime? Certainly worthy of 1st ballot HOF but he was never close to the best player in the league at any point in his career. Was a very good hitter but a below average defensive shortstop. Played on some great teams and had several clutch moments but his average 162 game season was .310 15 77.

Peyton Manning had a losing playoff record until 2015, when the Broncos defense carried Peyton's corpse to the SB win in his final NFL game. Even with the 2 SB wins, he still finished his postseason career just one game above .500. And, as you mentioned, in an era of multiple postseason weeks, he had those 9 1-and-done postseasons, and 6 of those were where his team was the home team.

The notion that he's in the top 5 all time is laughable.

 

[sean10mm]

I think it's important to distinguish a formula that lines up with HOF selection, which is basically just describing how the HOF actually judges people, with a system to measure how good they "really" are.

I liked that this was pointed out right from the jump in the first post.

"This default setting below, though, is as a Hall of Fame measure, as it's able to go through the first 52 players before it finds a player who fails the Hall of Fame yes/no test (Joe Namath, of course.)"

That's pretty dang good!

Peyton Manning was basically designed in a lab to break "objective" ranking systems. Dome player on offense-oriented teams playing most of his career under new rules made to cater to him, personally, because his team's owner whined. Yet both rings were in seasons where his defense carried him through the playoffs because he objectively stunk the joint up. Both his peak regular seasons (2004 and 2013) ended in absolutely humiliating playoff losses.

Like say what you will about Eli Manning, but at least he played WELL on his two Super Bowl runs. Peyton didn't have a single good playoff run start to finish IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER. And it's not like his Super Bowl losses were like Brady in SB52, he was... passable... against the Saints until that backbreaking pick, and he absolute bit the big one against the Seahawks.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Okay, I tried to integrate some of the ideas on here with this update. There were quite a few good ones that all were valid, so I tried to create some compromises. There will be some more problems, of course.

• I increased the championship reward a bit to ensure championships, the ultimate prize, are not undervalued. In addition, I agree with @BobDigital that the championship appearances is kind of clunky and strange. From listening to feedback, the intutive take is that there's no real penalty for playoff failures. This is a slippery slope beause you don't want to end up with a Montana > Brady type of argument by penalizing someone for getting into the tournament, and you don't want to go crazy with this idea. I created an Ali Score based on Muhammad Ali because he is famous for so many fights, and these playoff games are more like prize fights in many ways with all the attention; he didn't win them all, but he's still the greatest winner by winning a lot of them, and this is kind of the same idea. I think it's as close to a "clutch" factor as I can get here, though I'm trying to be mindful of not double dipping too far on championships and postseason success. The Ali score gives a little bigger boost to guys like Brady, Montana, Starr, Staubach, Bradshaw, Elway, Aikman, etc, while not overinflating the playoff success of guys like Eli, Big Ben, etc. I'm curious what @robertweathers thinks about this...might still be not weighted enough on winning. One thing I'd suggest is for everyone to look beyond the top 10...you might not see the heavy winning emphasis early on, but then you have Bob Griese and Troy Aikman over Sonny Jurgensen, and you have Dan Fouts and Warren Moon at the bottom of the first major tier.

• Again, it's impossible to do this without having some intuitive idea of what you want. For me, it's Montana > Manning which increases the winning weight, and then Marino > Bradshaw which increases the indvidual player weight. You might notice these two pairs are always next to each other, and that's because it's my way of fine tuning the criteria.

• I think that @Deus Irae has a good point that the Hall of Fame tracker is too weighted towards recency bias. I tried to fix some of that this time around, and I wouldn't say it's eliminated but it is improved a little. I think that Rivers and Mahomes are still too high on the list, though it's closer. One of the more interesting cases on here is Aikman and Wilson. The reason that Wilson continues to come in higher is that he has a much higher winning pct (.680 vs .570) and a much higher era adjusted passer rating; Aikman is, in fact, just about average. Aikman tends to be another polarizing figure in these lists. Eli drops to 58 in this version, largely because his era-adjusted passer rating and win/loss record aren't good, like a worse version of Aikman and with less championship pedigree.

• I created an adjuster called Moonrino. It's sort of the opposition against the Ali Score, and it looks for wide gaps between strong individual performance/awards and very low postseason points to show for it; it doesn't fill them all in but gives some partial credit. Now we kind of get these two scores pushing against each other to adjudicate individual ranking. The Moonrino effect works well, I think, because it brought up the list some of the guys with more longevity (it uses pro bowls - minus Ali Score) like Fouts, Moon, and Jurgensen; I also slightly adjusted the RateDex so that there was a slight uptick for modern players, putting those guys ahead of Danowski and Thompson per @stinkypete 's observation. But the key with the Moonrino adjuster is that, rather than just jacking up the accolades, it tends to only increase those a little bit for players who appeared to get shafted in extreme cases with such little WinDex points.

• Otto Graham is a pain in the ass for sure...I re-adjusted his ranking since his passer rating was a little lower in the NFL only. Right now I'm still giving 50% credit for all AAFC accomplishments but open to suggestions.

 

[Zarozzor]

Okay, I tried to integrate some of the ideas on here with this update. There were quite a few good ones that all were valid, so I tried to create some compromises. There will be some more problems, of course.

• I increased the championship reward a bit to ensure championships, the ultimate prize, are not undervalued. In addition, I agree with @BobDigital that the championship appearances is kind of clunky and strange. From listening to feedback, the intutive take is that there's no real penalty for playoff failures. This is a slippery slope beause you don't want to end up with a Montana > Brady type of argument by penalizing someone for getting into the tournament, and you don't want to go crazy with this idea. I created an Ali Score based on Muhammad Ali because he is famous for so many fights, and these playoff games are more like prize fights in many ways with all the attention; he didn't win them all, but he's still the greatest winner by winning a lot of them, and this is kind of the same idea. I think it's as close to a "clutch" factor as I can get here, though I'm trying to be mindful of not double dipping too far on championships and postseason success. The Ali score gives a little bigger boost to guys like Brady, Montana, Starr, Staubach, Bradshaw, Elway, Aikman, etc, while not overinflating the playoff success of guys like Eli, Big Ben, etc. I'm curious what @robertweathers thinks about this...might still be not weighted enough on winning. One thing I'd suggest is for everyone to look beyond the top 10...you might not see the heavy winning emphasis early on, but then you have Bob Griese and Troy Aikman over Sonny Jurgensen, and you have Dan Fouts and Warren Moon at the bottom of the first major tier.

• Again, it's impossible to do this without having some intuitive idea of what you want. For me, it's Montana > Manning which increases the winning weight, and then Marino > Bradshaw which increases the indvidual player weight. You might notice these two pairs are always next to each other, and that's because it's my way of fine tuning the criteria.

• I think that @Deus Irae has a good point that the Hall of Fame tracker is too weighted towards recency bias. I tried to fix some of that this time around, and I wouldn't say it's eliminated but it is improved a little. I think that Rivers and Mahomes are still too high on the list, though it's closer. One of the more interesting cases on here is Aikman and Wilson. The reason that Wilson continues to come in higher is that he has a much higher winning pct (.680 vs .570) and a much higher era adjusted passer rating; Aikman is, in fact, just about average. Aikman tends to be another polarizing figure in these lists. Eli drops to 58 in this version, largely because his era-adjusted passer rating and win/loss record aren't good, like a worse version of Aikman and with less championship pedigree.

• I created an adjuster called Moonrino. It's sort of the opposition against the Ali Score, and it looks for wide gaps between strong individual performance/awards and very low postseason points to show for it; it doesn't fill them all in but gives some partial credit. Now we kind of get these two scores pushing against each other to adjudicate individual ranking. The Moonrino effect works well, I think, because it brought up the list some of the guys with more longevity (it uses pro bowls - minus Ali Score) like Fouts, Moon, and Jurgensen; I also slightly adjusted the RateDex so that there was a slight uptick for modern players, putting those guys ahead of Danowski and Thompson per @stinkypete 's observation. But the key with the Moonrino adjuster is that, rather than just jacking up the accolades, it tends to only increase those a little bit for players who appeared to get shafted in extreme cases with such little WinDex points.

• Otto Graham is a pain in the ass for sure...I re-adjusted his ranking since his passer rating was a little lower in the NFL only. Right now I'm still giving 50% credit for all AAFC accomplishments but open to suggestions.

View attachment 30865

Even after the Graham adjustment he still is slightly ahead of Montana for the #2 spot. That shows how great of a quarterback he was, and it’s a shame 90% of NFL fans now don’t know about him or just dismiss him entirely.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Even after the Graham adjustment he still is slightly ahead of Montana for the #2 spot. That shows how great of a quarterback he was, and it’s a shame 90% of NFL fans now don’t know about him or just dismiss him entirely.

I think if he falls outside that top 6, there's a big problem with the rankings. I've always had him 2 or 3 and usually 2. He his pretty hard to rank within that group, though, just because he only has six years of real, non-theoretical NFL experience.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I went through and looked at quarterbacks records against winning teams. Mainly the guys who have retired since there is already data for the current guys.

Otto Graham numbers are NFL only and any ties are not included. All numbers are regular season only. Active players have * next to their name.


Chronological Order
Otto Graham: 16-11 .593%
Bobby Layne: 25-33 .431%
Bart Starr: 33-36 .478%
Johnny Unitas: 34-43 .442%
Len Dawson: 32-39 .451%
Roger Staubach: 26-21 .553%
Terry Bradshaw: 34-35 .493%
Joe Montana: 44-25 .638%
John Elway: 46-53 .465%
Dan Marino: 52-63 .452%
Steve Young: 26-27 .491%
Troy Aikman: 30-45 .400%
Brett Favre: 58-63 .479%
Peyton Manning: 61-57 .517%
Kurt Warner: 15-26 .366%
*Tom Brady: 74-47 .611%
*Drew Brees: 53-68 .438%
*Ben Roethlisberger: 57-41 .582%
*Aaron Rodgers: 36-43 .456%
*Russell Wilson 32-27 .542%

Ranked by Win %
1. Joe Montana - .638%
2. *Tom Brady - .611%
3. Otto Graham - .593%
4. *Ben Roethlisberger - .582%
5. Roger Staubach - .553%
6. *Russell Wilson - .542%
7. Peyton Manning - .517%
8. Terry Bradshaw - .493%
9. Steve Young - .491%
10. Brett Favre - .479%
11. Bart Starr .478%
12. John Elway - .465%
13. *Aaron Rodgers - .456%
14. Dan Marino - .452%
15. Len Dawson .451%
16. Johnny Unitas - .442%
17. *Drew Brees - .438%
18. Bobby Layne .431%
19. Troy Aikman - .400%
20. Kurt Warner - .366%

Holy crap.

I am blown away by this. Great job.

Shocked as hell how high Roeth is.

Starr, TB12v1 have career losing records vs winning teams? WOW.

 

[Zarozzor]

I think if he falls outside that top 6, there's a big problem with the rankings. I've always had him 2 or 3 and usually 2. He his pretty hard to rank within that group, though, just because he only has six years of real, non-theoretical NFL experience.

You’ve got the obvious GOAT in Brady at #1 just so far ahead of anyone else, but I think it’s cool how #2-#6 are separated by only 3.9. That’s a really tough section.