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

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

@Ice_Ice_Brady I saw you post this in another thread. is this your personal list based on things you value? or is it formula/system based?

great thread, plan on reading through it these next few days

That's based solely on my opinion, though I try to respect the general tiers produced by the Excel formulas. There are some exceptions where I think a player is simply better - or worse - in reality than on paper.

 

[TB12TheGoat]

That's based solely on my opinion, though I try to respect the general tiers produced by the Excel formulas. There are some exceptions where I think a player is simply better - or worse - in reality than on paper.

I've seen some people use formulas to rank the best quarterbacks. I considered doing it myself after reading about theirs but found that it's impossible for it to measure certain things a QB does. to your last point, there are some guys who are better in reality than they are on paper and vice versa. off the top of my head, Staubach is better and Favre/Rodgers are worse

 

[p8ryts]

I like this list a lot. Almost my top 10 too.

Layne is very high though compared to consensus rankings. Just curious why you rank him that high? I see him often as top 20 but haven’t seen a list with him top 10.

I loved Bobby Layne, probably had a cigar and a shot during half time.

 

[p8ryts]

Bobby Layne - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Marino and Manning were outstanding passers. Game management, awareness and not making the fatal turnover are crucial in the overall evaluation. Yes, Elway was talented. It's no reflection on his character (or Drew Bledsoe's) that he wasn't as good as the others.

Thanks for posting the Wiki bio. Always one of my favorites. He was rough and tough.

 

[Zarozzor]

I've seen some people use formulas to rank the best quarterbacks. I considered doing it myself after reading about theirs but found that it's impossible for it to measure certain things a QB does. to your last point, there are some guys who are better in reality than they are on paper and vice versa. off the top of my head, Staubach is better and Favre/Rodgers are worse

That's why I haven't touched the formula I was working on. I wanted to use one, but it's just not coming together how I like it. There are just so many things that it's not being able to account for that are extremely important. How is it supposed to measure a guy who didn't pop out on paper but just had that unquantifiable it factor? Someone like Elway? A guy who didn't have the greatest stats, even in his era, but could just flat out beat you with his legs, arm, clutch, intangibles? And then there's the fact I was having to break the system to stop a couple of guys from being right near the top who I know didn't deserve that high. @Ice_Ice_Brady probably knows the main guy I'm talking about since I believe he was having the same issue.

Maybe someone on here can chime in?

 

[DropKickFlutie]

This is a cool thread. Analysis is nicely done. I agree that Steve Young is in the Favre/Rodgers group. While I'm not a fan of Manning's, he separated himself from this group of QBs with multiple rings, and unfortunately managed to very slightly rub off some of the choker label. Young had the greatest WR of all time to throw to. There's also irrational love for Young from a senile poster so it must be wrong.

 

[Guts]

I wonder how high Stafford can go if he comes through and wins a chip this year. No MVPs but a Superbowl and a lot of passing accolades

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Glad this thread got revived…looking forward to more discussion on it.

I wonder how high Stafford can go if he comes through and wins a chip this year. No MVPs but a Superbowl and a lot of passing accolades

Stafford is a really interesting case in terms of QB responsibility for postseason success. Hope we get a larger sample size from him.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Glad this thread got revived…looking forward to more discussion on it.



Stafford is a really interesting case in terms of QB responsibility for postseason success. Hope we get a larger sample size from him.

Hes had a tough time in both games vs SF this year. I'm not optimistic.

Where is he on your list now?

Is he in the 40s?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Hes had a tough time in both games vs SF this year. I'm not optimistic.

Where is he on your list now?

Is he in the 40s?

I’ll re-run the list soon, but I’m guessing lower than that.

 

[Zarozzor]

@Ice_Ice_Brady @Deus Irae

I know you two have Baugh rated highly. Is there something I'm missing with him and Luckman? I know general consensus is that Baugh was the greatest of that era and most people who include the legends have him somewhere in the top 10. But my brain is telling me that Luckman was better every time I look and compare the two. Is there something I'm missing? Is Baugh's getting credit for playing multiple positions? Is it the longevity edge and the fact Baugh threw over 1,000 more passes?

 

[libra957]

Otto seem a little too high. Advanced for his time, yes, but we didn't have 32 teams back then and the NFL was split.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

@Ice_Ice_Brady @Deus Irae

I know you two have Baugh rated highly. Is there something I'm missing with him and Luckman? I know general consensus is that Baugh was the greatest of that era and most people who include the legends have him somewhere in the top 10. But my brain is telling me that Luckman was better every time I look and compare the two. Is there something I'm missing? Is Baugh's getting credit for playing multiple positions? Is it the longevity edge and the fact Baugh threw over 1,000 more passes?

The longevity is why I’ve gone with Baugh…that and the 1937 Championship Game changing football.

But even with that longevity handicap, Luckman still beats Baugh often in the computer rankings.

I may need to revisit this one again though.

There’s no doubt Luckman is the most overlooked all-time great QB, as for whatever reason no one puts him top 5, yet Baugh is often put there. In fact, you rarely see Luckman in the top 15.

 

[Zarozzor]

The longevity is why I’ve gone with Baugh…that and the 1937 Championship Game changing football.

But even with that longevity handicap, Luckman still beats Baugh often in the computer rankings.

I may need to revisit this one again though.

There’s no doubt Luckman is the most overlooked all-time great QB, as for whatever reason no one puts him top 5, yet Baugh is often put there. In fact, you rarely see Luckman in the top 15.

I used your estimated win % for them and Luckman is at .743 while Baugh is at .617. Luckman won 4 championships to Baugh's 2, including 2-1 head-to-head in them. Both played in 5 championships. And though team scoring can sometimes be a little iffy, Luckman led 6 #1 offenses to Baugh's 1.

I 100% agree with you that Luckman is always overlooked. Curious to see if you find anything or change your opinion on the two once you revisit them.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I used your estimated win % for them and Luckman is at .743 while Baugh is at .617. Luckman won 4 championships to Baugh's 2, including 2-1 head-to-head in them. Both played in 5 championships. And though team scoring can sometimes be a little iffy, Luckman led 6 #1 offenses to Baugh's 1.

I 100% agree with you that Luckman is always overlooked. Curious to see if you find anything or change your opinion on the two once you revisit them.

Crazy how good Luckman was....another one where supposedly it was the system, but after he left, the system turned out to be nothing. Luckman's winning pct is up near Brady territory and he was such an assassin in big games too.

 

[Deus Irae]

The following was originally posted in the Tompa Bay thread, but IIB thought it might work here, as well, so here goes:

We don’t really disagree on much. I guess Ben would be “first ballot” in my book as well, as I think a player is either worthy or not worthy, and the first ballot stuff is nonsense. But I meant by that I think he’s a closer to the “not Hall worthy” line than has been the general thinking. He’s worthy, but on list of Hall QBs would be ranked well below the midpoint, which usually leads to at least a healthy discussion.

I think Eli is simply an outlier. It isn’t a question of where he ranks among his peers. It’s a question of how much weight you put on the two championships and two historically clutch (or lucky) drives. He’s a .500 QB with an 0-4 playoff record, if you remove those eight games. In those eight games, there’s a large element of luck as the offense wasn’t great either. That’s not to say he isn’t clutch or doesn’t belong. It’s just a strange situation.

Rivers is the big question, I think. I don’t know if being top 10 all-time in a bunch of counting stats is really enough. We’re going to see guys fly past him as the years go on. He really is a case of “Hall of Very Good.” How much better/more worthy is Rivers than Ryan? Stafford could pass him very quickly. Things could look different in a few years when you compare him to other guys who have caught up to him in longevity.

This topic always gets me to re-think. Sometimes that's great. Sometimes it's a pain in the ass. But, rather than hash it out in my brain, I thought I'd just toss out a bit of a ranking game, just based upon who's gotten in relatively recently. So I thought I'd toss out the group starting with the class of 1990, to see if anyone wants to try slotting Eli, Roethlisberger, Brees, Rogers, Rivers, and any other that I might have missed (If you don't have Brady at #1 among this group, you don't really deserve a vote, so I'm not bothering to include him, but maybe you want to argue about Wilson or someone else). The list will be somewhat long but not overmuch, and, anyway, welcome to the offseason, right?

Griese
Fouts
Montana
Kelly
Elway
Marino
Young
Aikman
Moon
Favre
Stabler
Warner
Peyton


I left Benny Friedman out, because I'm not sure how many really know about him, but people are obviously welcome to add him to the mix.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The following was originally posted in the Tompa Bay thread, but IIB thought it might work here, as well, so here goes:


This topic always gets me to re-think. Sometimes that's great. Sometimes it's a pain in the ass. But, rather than hash it out in my brain, I thought I'd just toss out a bit of a ranking game, just based upon who's gotten in relatively recently. So I thought I'd toss out the group starting with the class of 1990, to see if anyone wants to try slotting Eli, Roethlisberger, Brees, Rogers, Rivers, and any other that I might have missed (If you don't have Brady at #1 among this group, you don't really deserve a vote, so I'm not bothering to include him, but maybe you want to argue about Wilson or someone else). The list will be somewhat long but not overmuch, and, anyway, welcome to the offseason, right?

Griese
Fouts
Montana
Kelly
Elway
Marino
Young
Aikman
Moon
Favre
Stabler
Warner
Peyton


I left Benny Friedman out, because I'm not sure how many really know about him, but people are obviously welcome to add him to the mix.

Some of the stats I've been trying have flipped around some results (Brees higher; Young lower, for example.) Looking into them more. The guys are still pretty close together though, so you might push a few up and down, but the general tiers are pretty consistent.

I'll have to think about my personal rankings. Computer rankings, based on a configuration I've used pretty consistently:

Peyton
Montana
Elway
Brees
Favre
Rodgers
Young
Marino
Roethlisberger
Griese
Aikman
Kelly
Wilson
Stabler
Warner
Rivers
Friedman
Moon
Fouts
Eli

People love to focus on the top of the list, and I get it, but I think what's interesting is at the bottom. Eli is essentially tied with Fouts; their scores are almost exactly the same. Namath is right there, too, as is McNabb. Clearly this is right in the bubble territory.



This has just reminded me how hard - or probably impossible - to objectively intra-rank guys within tiers. So @Zarozzor brings up some great points about Luckman versus Baugh. You could really make a strong case for either guy, as is so often the case. On this configuration above, Baugh has 27.27 and Luckman 26.45. You're basically talking about statistical noise when you get to those levels...you put a little more weight on area and they change. But in terms of the general tiers, it's hard to push someone up or down like five slots.

 

[Deus Irae]

Some of the stats I've been trying have flipped around some results (Brees higher; Young lower, for example.) Looking into them more. The guys are still pretty close together though, so you might push a few up and down, but the general tiers are pretty consistent.

I'll have to think about my personal rankings. Computer rankings, based on a configuration I've used pretty consistently:

Peyton
Montana
Elway
Brees
Favre
Rodgers
Young
Marino
Roethlisberger
Griese
Aikman
Kelly
Wilson
Stabler
Warner
Rivers
Friedman
Moon
Fouts
Eli

People love to focus on the top of the list, and I get it, but I think what's interesting is at the bottom. Eli is essentially tied with Fouts; their scores are almost exactly the same. Namath is right there, too, as is McNabb. Clearly this is right in the bubble territory.

View attachment 40439

This has just reminded me how hard - or probably impossible - to objectively intra-rank guys within tiers. So @Zarozzor brings up some great points about Luckman versus Baugh. You could really make a strong case for either guy, as is so often the case. On this configuration above, Baugh has 27.27 and Luckman 26.45. You're basically talking about statistical noise when you get to those levels...you put a little more weight on area and they change. But in terms of the general tiers, it's hard to push someone up or down like five slots.

Just to add a layer, I thought I'd toss this log on the fire:

Pro Football QB Hall of Fame Monitor | Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Just to add a layer, I thought I'd toss this log on the fire:

Pro Football QB Hall of Fame Monitor | Pro-Football-Reference.com

I’ve seen it. I think there are problems that cause lists to turn out like that (basically a pile of ****.)

• Total wins, yards, TDs, for seasons and career total all cause recency bias.
• You have to adjust seasons for games played…so start with efficiency stats (winning pct, for example), then total up the seasons.
• You have to adjust stats based on era norms.
• I avoid total single season leaderboard stuff because it’s inconsistent. I think you want to establish a quarterback’s efficiency as a passer, then after you get that sorted out, establish his volume. It usually works out pretty well for a career measure.
• It’s better to create an awards index by assigning a weight to accolades like MVP, All-Pro, etc, and not double dipping. Otherwise you get huge gaps between players that shouldn’t be there. MVP should reinforce and enhance All Pro which should reinforce and enhance Pro Bowl.

 

[Deus Irae]

I’ve seen it. I think there are problems that cause lists to turn out like that (basically a pile of ****.)

• Total wins, yards, TDs, for seasons and career total all cause recency bias.
• You have to adjust seasons for games played…so start with efficiency stats (winning pct, for example), then total up the seasons.
• You have to adjust stats based on era norms.
• I avoid total single season leaderboard stuff because it’s inconsistent. I think you want to establish a quarterback’s efficiency as a passer, then after you get that sorted out, establish his volume. It usually works out pretty well for a career measure.
• It’s better to create an awards index by assigning a weight to accolades like MVP, All-Pro, etc, amd not double dipping. Otherwise you get huge gaps between players that shouldn’t be there. MVP should reinforce and enhance All Pro which should reinforce and enhance Pro Bowl.

I have all sorts of problems with that list. I just thought it was something to serve up to you, in light of your comment about Manning/Fouts.