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

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I've been working on a QB ranking project, which assigns value to various data points to create a ranking. Please note - this is an adjustable system where you can change the weight of various accomplishments. Personally, I'd have Montana over Manning to begin with and Eli/Rivers would be much lower than 30. 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.) Every player before that is either active, not eligible, or correctly placed above or below the threshhold, as you can see by the gold Hall of Fame designations. It's difficult to do this because if you change one setting or value, it effects every player, so getting all of the Hall of Famers above 10.00 and non Hall of Famers below 10.00 has consquences up the list, especially where you'd like to see some "tiebreakers" come out another way based on common sense.

So, here are the data points that I put in:

• WinDEX: League Championships, Championships Appearances, Playoff Wins & Franchise (a formula using winning percentage). The first three are self-explanatory, but I should mention that Playoff Wins are ideal because they bridge pre-merger and post-merger. They give the modern QBs more opportunity to rack up points because it's harder to win it all. Franchise is a stat I created which is based on winning percentage and years played; it gives some points just for playing (winning at .60 like most QBs) but really rewards guys for long-term dominance. Franchise awards points for winning percentage with regard to seasons played and how far over .500.
• TrophyDEX: MVP, All-Pro, All-Star, All-NFL (that's all-decade or NFL100 team.) These are self-explanatory and just weighted. All of the rankings here are based on the idea that they're connected, so an MVP isn't worth more than an All-Pro because if you win an MVP, you're also winning an All-Pro and and All-Star, so all together that's a lot of points (same with championships, appearances, and playoffs.) Moon Score is something I added when Warren Moon and Georga Blanda kept coming up 20 slots below Hall of Fame and looks for undervalued career consistency that hasn't gotten enough accolade weight.
• RateDEX: I used a simple passer rating for every player on this one. There are definitely better measures of QB skills, but this isn't looking to be precise but just to get a general level of play. It's important to note, for example, a major difference in passer rating between two guys playing in the same era (Young/Aikman, Staubach/Bradshaw.) I created a formula which does two things with passer rating...first, it assigns points for pure passer rating, in a vaccuum, so basically you're just saying how is this guy compared to the most average QB in NFL history playing in 1963 with a passer rating of 72.3. That leads to recency bias, so the other half of it, the heavier weighted half, is to compare passer rating to the average of that era, or an era passer rating. It was pretty easy to calculate this (on average, passer rating goes up about 0.5 per year). I've also tried to create some incentive for long-term success and some disincentive for short term success (Mahomes, Jackson, etc.), but efficiency itself is weighed more heavily than longivity. Both of these categories are adjustable for fine tuning. But please note that by adjustments, I mean must apply to all, so there's no selective changes.

I'll probably post my actual QB rankings (opnion) later on, which doesn't depend on Hall of Fame status/consistency but is scored based on what I see as important, personally.

 

[Deus Irae]

This should be a fun thread. I look forward to the back and forth, and the suggestions.

 

[everlong]

I don't have the brain power left today to really dig into this but I applaud the effort and will try to dig into it tomorrow.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This one is a little closer to my personal opinion, though still with some problems, no doubt. Personally I think it's good to have more emphasis on era-adjusted dominance and overall winning,, though I think it still might be conservative and too much recency bias. But at least it breaks the ties of Montana > Manning, Young > Favre, Staubach > Bradshaw. etc.

I've found the most interesting indicator is where you find Bradshaw and Marino because they are both generally ranked in the 12-18 range and yet have extremely different data sets, so it's a question of what you're weighing more heavily.

 

[NormZauchin]

I've been working on a QB ranking project, which assigns value to various data points to create a ranking. Please note - this is an adjustable system where you can change the weight of various accomplishments. Personally, I'd have Montana over Manning to begin with and Eli/Rivers would be much lower than 30. 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.) Every player before that is either active, not eligible, or correctly placed above or below the threshhold, as you can see by the gold Hall of Fame designations. It's difficult to do this because if you change one setting or value, it effects every player, so getting all of the Hall of Famers above 10.00 and non Hall of Famers below 10.00 has consquences up the list, especially where you'd like to see some "tiebreakers" come out another way based on common sense.

So, here are the data points that I put in:

• WinDEX: League Championships, Championships Appearances, Playoff Wins & Franchise (a formula using winning percentage). The first three are self-explanatory, but I should mention that Playoff Wins are ideal because they bridge pre-merger and post-merger. They give the modern QBs more opportunity to rack up points because it's harder to win it all. Franchise is a stat I created which is based on winning percentage and years played; it gives some points just for playing (winning at .60 like most QBs) but really rewards guys for long-term dominance. Franchise awards points for winning percentage with regard to seasons played and how far over .500.
• TrophyDEX: MVP, All-Pro, All-Star, All-NFL (that's all-decade or NFL100 team.) These are self-explanatory and just weighted. All of the rankings here are based on the idea that they're connected, so an MVP isn't worth more than an All-Pro because if you win an MVP, you're also winning an All-Pro and and All-Star, so all together that's a lot of points (same with championships, appearances, and playoffs.) Moon Score is something I added when Warren Moon and Georga Blanda kept coming up 20 slots below Hall of Fame and looks for undervalued career consistency that hasn't gotten enough accolade weight.
• RateDEX: I used a simple passer rating for every player on this one. There are definitely better measures of QB skills, but this isn't looking to be precise but just to get a general level of play. It's important to note, for example, a major difference in passer rating between two guys playing in the same era (Young/Aikman, Staubach/Bradshaw.) I created a formula which does two things with passer rating...first, it assigns points for pure passer rating, in a vaccuum, so basically you're just saying how is this guy compared to the most average QB in NFL history playing in 1963 with a passer rating of 72.3. That leads to recency bias, so the other half of it, the heavier weighted half, is to compare passer rating to the average of that era, or an era passer rating. It was pretty easy to calculate this (on average, passer rating goes up about 0.5 per year). I've also tried to create some incentive for long-term success and some disincentive for short term success (Mahomes, Jackson, etc.), but efficiency itself is weighed more heavily than longivity. Both of these categories are adjustable for fine tuning. But please note that by adjustments, I mean must apply to all, so there's no selective changes.

I'll probably post my actual QB rankings (opnion) later on, which doesn't depend on Hall of Fame status/consistency but is scored based on what I see as important, personally.

View attachment 30847

Explains why Dan Fouts dislikes Tom Brady.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Nice job Ice, really good work.

I think my favorite thing is the fact that you can play with settings and factors that one might weight when making a list. I feel like mine change every few years but most names aren't moving far.

I'm definitely interested in seeing the different outcomes. Like you said era-adjusted and maybe playoff performance might be interesting. Again I like the fact that you can play around with the settings.

Like I said I have np changing a few names but this is a good idea of where I'd have guys.

Brady, Manning, Young, Montana, Unitas, Staubach, Graham, Starr, Marino and I'd be ok Rodgers, Sammy or Sid at 10.

Should be a good thread

 

[Tony2046]

This one is a little closer to my personal opinion, though still with some problems, no doubt. Personally I think it's good to have more emphasis on era-adjusted dominance and overall winning,, though I think it still might be conservative and too much recency bias. But at least it breaks the ties of Montana > Manning, Young > Favre, Staubach > Bradshaw. etc.

I've found the most interesting indicator is where you find Bradshaw and Marino because they are both generally ranked in the 12-18 range and yet have extremely different data sets, so it's a question of what you're weighing more heavily.

View attachment 30848

Great stuff Ice.

Not that I disagree with it but it is strange to see Mahomes in the HOF window.

What was Brady's rating after 3 years?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Nice job Ice, really good work.

I think my favorite thing is the fact that you can play with settings and factors that one might weight when making a list. I feel like mine change every few years but most names aren't moving far.

I'm definitely interested in seeing the different outcomes. Like you said era-adjusted and maybe playoff performance might be interesting. Again I like the fact that you can play around with the settings.

Like I said I have np changing a few names but this is a good idea of where I'd have guys.

Brady, Manning, Young, Montana, Unitas, Staubach, Graham, Starr, Marino and I'd be ok Rodgers, Sammy or Sid at 10.

Should be a good thread

Thanks...that's what I like the most about it, too...because my intention isn't to just post a top 10 list and then argue about why it's right. What makes this a great discussion, I think, is you really get into the complexities not just of football but success in general, as you weigh outcomes versus performance, indivdiual versus team, etc.

At some point, I'll try to link it as a Google sheet with buttons for adjustments and sorting, so everyone can have their fine tuning. I think that would be cool...and if there's a need to add more fields of data or change equations, we could do that too.

Thanks for posting your top 10...with the exception of Marino, those guys are pretty much in every top 15 list I've done in Excel, and usually 8-11 is some combination of Rodgers, Staubach, Baugh, and Luckman, though it's very hard to find a numerical way to put Baugh over Luckman, which is kind of surprising. Marino is a challenge because he consistently shows up underranked, but I have some ideas about his consistent all-pro selections and how to put more value on that.

I love that the top 10/20 includes so many rivalries and many of these final rankings come down to their head to head outcomes;; reading up on the rivalries is really fun stuff and a great look at football's history: Baugh/Luckman, Graham/Layne, Starr/Unitas, Bradshaw/Unitas, Marino/Montana, Young/Favre, Brady/Manning.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Great stuff Ice.

Not that I disagree with it but it is strange to see Mahomes in the HOF window.

What was Brady's rating after 3 years?

Brady would have the score to get in back in 2003, though it was closer to the cutoff. See ranking below.

Mahomes is really high because he's on a ridiculous pace and should make it if he retired tomorrow. In three seasons, he's probably created more value than some Hall of Fame guys have in their caeers. Winning at 80%,, he's 30 games over .500. Winning 65% of your games, which is well above Hall of Fame standard, it would take about 100 games and six seasons (twice Mahomes) to be at +30. And this outlier stuff is all algned very well in his championship/playoff score, his accolades, and his adjusted passer rating. So really, there's not much of an argument that he's already achieved Hall of Fame value, and not just that, but he's pretty obvious unless people have some kind of rule of thumb.

Pretty remarkable stuff, but I'm guessing Aaron Rodgers would have already met the threshold after 2011 too. The thing is, though, these guys have somewhat maxed out their efficiency scores. The formula does account for a dip as it expects a slight regression to the mean, so someone like Mahomes won't fall off, but he's also only moving up to another class by winning championships. There's just no other way. Rodgers has likely been in the top 20 for 10 years, but even years of MVPs, all-pros, etc. don't move the needle enough. You need those titles. Otherwise, Rodgers will always be someone hovering around #9-12...and will likely get passed before long too.

 

[Nehalem]

So I mean the obvious problem is Eli Manning being ranked as HOF worthy at 30.

I wonder if the problem is that Eli Manning has a great post season record because he missed the post season so many times?
8-4 playoff records
2 SBs
4 one and dones
8 missed playoffs.

Maybe there should be a penalty for missing the playoffs? I mean the expectation should be that a HOF QB makes the playoffs.

So maybe every year you don't make the playoffs should count as going 0-1.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Thanks...that's what I like the most about it, too...because my intention isn't to just post a top 10 list and then argue about why it's right. What makes this a great discussion, I think, is you really get into the complexities not just of football but success in general, as you weigh outcomes versus performance, indivdiual versus team, etc.

At some point, I'll try to link it as a Google sheet with buttons for adjustments and sorting, so everyone can have their fine tuning. I think that would be cool...and if there's a need to add more fields of data or change equations, we could do that too.

Thanks for posting your top 10...with the exception of Marino, those guys are pretty much in every top 15 list I've done in Excel, and usually 8-11 is some combination of Rodgers, Staubach, Baugh, and Luckman, though it's very hard to find a numerical way to put Baugh over Luckman, which is kind of surprising. Marino is a challenge because he consistently shows up underranked, but I have some ideas about his consistent all-pro selections and how to put more value on that.

I love that the top 10/20 includes so many rivalries and many of these final rankings come down to their head to head outcomes;; reading up on the rivalries is really fun stuff and a great look at football's history: Baugh/Luckman, Graham/Layne, Starr/Unitas, Bradshaw/Unitas, Marino/Montana, Young/Favre, Brady/Manning.

Given everyone access like a tool would be very cool.

This era is void of real rivals. Once and a while but it's not the same as the stories you'd hear about from decades ago.

It's funny how they shake out. Brady and Peyton are tied together but Eli hurt Tom more than Peyton ever could.

Montana vs everyone? Marino, Elway, Young ...

Bradshaw and Staubach had a few big games against each other.

 

[Deus Irae]

So I mean the obvious problem is Eli Manning being ranked as HOF worthy at 30.

I wonder if the problem is that Eli Manning has a great post season record because he missed the post season so many times?
8-4 playoff records
2 SBs
4 one and dones
8 missed playoffs.

Maybe there should be a penalty for missing the playoffs? I mean the expectation should be that a HOF QB makes the playoffs.

So maybe every year you don't make the playoffs should count as going 0-1.

Both Manning rankings are abominations. Peyton **** the bed in the playoffs time and time again, yet he's still listed at #3.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

So I mean the obvious problem is Eli Manning being ranked as HOF worthy at 30.

I wonder if the problem is that Eli Manning has a great post season record because he missed the post season so many times?
8-4 playoff records
2 SBs
4 one and dones
8 missed playoffs.

Maybe there should be a penalty for missing the playoffs? I mean the expectation should be that a HOF QB makes the playoffs.

So maybe every year you don't make the playoffs should count as going 0-1.

Yes, 30th based only on Hall of Fame worthiness, which isn't the same as 30th in a vacuum. Based on crtieria used by Hall voters to determine who gets into the Hall, he would be the 30th most likely to get in. That's not a certain statement, but it's the best esimate I can make because the overall power numbers match up with Hall selections.

My other chart is more of a basic power ranking, independent of Hall criteria; Eli is #45 on my other chart and I think that's closer, though he may free fall even more. But Eli is a great thing for rankings like these; we're using guys like Eli to figure out how water down his ranking based on what we know intuitively, which is that he's an average QB who got lucky; so how do we weigh his winning versus his actual skill level and compare it to others?...and when you can do that with Eli and apply that criteria to everyone on the list, it makes it all more logical and subject to checks/balances. Then you try to do the same thing with guys like Marino, Jurgensen, Tarkenton, who are the opposite of Eli - great players who didn't win, and try to find a balance...or figure out at what point a guy surpasses Eli overall despite having no titles.

There is a win percentage factor, which is prety big because a .500 QB gets little credit for anything valuable, and missing the playoffs means no playoff wins that year, so I think that's covered but could be weighted heavier. But in fairness to Eli, who I think is incredibly lucky, there are actually other players on that chart who are multi-time champs who were worse than him, and it's reflected in their score. I don't think Eli will be "the worst quarterback in the Hall" by any measure; for one, Namath is much, much worse. Eli isn't actually a bad quarterback; he just isn't a good one. Being average and having those two titles is going to get him without too much resistance. Other guys who wish they had been as average as Eli:

-Jim Plunkett is way, way down the chart. It's because, when you adjust for era, Eli is about an average passer. Plunkett sucks.
-Jack Kemp is a 2x AFL Champ who also was below average, which is why he isn't in.
-Tommy Thompson is another guy who won 2 titles, in the 40s, but his passer rating shows he was pretty bad, adjust for his era.
-Ed Danowski might be the best QB not in the Hall; he's an old-timer, and his knock is he only played 5-6 seasons.

As @Deus Irae points out, Peyton is a huge abomination; and frankly, it sucks that he got so many borderline awards and two borderline Super Bowls because he's a much bigger problem for these rankings. Eli is easy and necessary to de-rank, as it helps to balance everyone on the chart. Peyton, on the other hand, is a pain in the ass. I really hate ranking him above Montana; if I rank Montana above him, it's because of some very specific adjustments like ramping up championship weight to an uncomfortable level, or going heavy on adjusted-era passer rating (where Montana has an advantage on him.) Those have consequences for everyone down the list...and it's all because I'm trying to rank Montana (one of the greatest winners) above Manning (one of the biggest losers.)

 

[Zarozzor]

Nice.

Hopefully this thread reaches lots of pages going back and forth about where certain quarterbacks deserve to be ranked all-time.

It’s impossible to have a good discussion on Reddit or Facebook, and the only NFL forum with decent traffic changed up back in 2017 and now barely gets any.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Yes, 30th based only on Hall of Fame worthiness, which isn't the same as 30th in a vacuum. Based on crtieria used by Hall voters to determine who gets into the Hall, he would be the 30th most likely to get in. That's not a certain statement, but it's the best esimate I can make because the overall power numbers match up with Hall selections.

My other chart is more of a basic power ranking, independent of Hall criteria; Eli is #45 on my other chart and I think that's closer, though he may free fall even more. But Eli is a great thing for rankings like these; we're using guys like Eli to figure out how water down his ranking based on what we know intuitively, which is that he's an average QB who got lucky; so how do we weigh his winning versus his actual skill level and compare it to others?...and when you can do that with Eli and apply that criteria to everyone on the list, it makes it all more logical and subject to checks/balances. Then you try to do the same thing with guys like Marino, Jurgensen, Tarkenton, who are the opposite of Eli - great players who didn't win, and try to find a balance...or figure out at what point a guy surpasses Eli overall despite having no titles.

There is a win percentage factor, which is prety big because a .500 QB gets little credit for anything valuable, and missing the playoffs means no playoff wins that year, so I think that's covered but could be weighted heavier. But in fairness to Eli, who I think is incredibly lucky, there are actually other players on that chart who are multi-time champs who were worse than him, and it's reflected in their score. I don't think Eli will be "the worst quarterback in the Hall" by any measure; for one, Namath is much, much worse. Eli isn't actually a bad quarterback; he just isn't a good one. Being average and having those two titles is going to get him without too much resistance. Other guys who wish they had been as average as Eli:

-Jim Plunkett is way, way down the chart. It's because, when you adjust for era, Eli is about an average passer. Plunkett sucks.
-Jack Kemp is a 2x AFL Champ who also was below average, which is why he isn't in.
-Tommy Thompson is another guy who won 2 titles, in the 40s, but his passer rating shows he was pretty bad, adjust for his era.
-Ed Danowski might be the best QB not in the Hall; he's an old-timer, and his knock is he only played 5-6 seasons.

As @Deus Irae points out, Peyton is a huge abomination; and frankly, it sucks that he got so many borderline awards and two borderline Super Bowls because he's a much bigger problem for these rankings. Eli is easy and necessary to de-rank, as it helps to balance everyone on the chart. Peyton, on the other hand, is a pain in the ass. I really hate ranking him above Montana; if I rank Montana above him, it's because of some very specific adjustments like ramping up championship weight to an uncomfortable level, or going heavy on adjusted-era passer rating (where Montana has an advantage on him.) Those have consequences for everyone down the list...and it's all because I'm trying to rank Montana (one of the greatest winners) above Manning (one of the biggest losers.)

Excellent.

I agree. Peyton is way too high. He played on some Super Bowl -caliber teams and choked in the playoffs way too many times.

What you could do is adjust the weight you assign to columns.

For example, QBs that won get a higher weight than those who won MVPs or had great passer ratings.

That would also push down his brother, Favre, Rogers and Marino down the list where they below.

Now you are separating "Passers" from "Quarterbacks"

Just a thought.

 

[Zarozzor]

I'm thinking of making a spreadsheet with categories and different quarterbacks numbers in them. Not necessarily a formula to rank them, but I'd like to have all the numbers in front of me so I can then review them and rank accordingly. Any suggestions on what to add/subtract? I have quite a few in mind right now.

1. Super Bowl/NFL Championships
2. Super Bowl/NFL Championship Appearances
3. Playoff Wins
4. Division Championships
5. Regular Season Wins
6. Regular Season Win/Loss %
7. Pro Bowl
8. All-Pro
9. Regular Season MVP
10. Super Bowl MVP
11. 1st Place Offense
12. Top 10 Offense
13. Regular Season 4QC
14. Regular Season GWD
15. Playoff 4QC
16. Playoff GWD
17. Completion % Leader
18. Passing Yard Leader
19. Passing Touchdown Leader
20. Interception % Leader
21. Passer Rating Leader

And the below with context

22. Completion %
23. Passing Yards
24. Touchdowns
25. Interception %
26. TD/INT Ratio
27. Passer Rating

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'm thinking of making a spreadsheet with categories and different quarterbacks numbers in them. Not necessarily a formula to rank them, but I'd like to have all the numbers in front of me so I can then review them and rank accordingly. Any suggestions on what to add/subtract? I have quite a few in mind right now.

1. Super Bowl/NFL Championships
2. Super Bowl/NFL Championship Appearances
3. Playoff Wins
4. Division Championships
5. Regular Season Wins
6. Regular Season Win/Loss %
7. Pro Bowl
8. All-Pro
9. Regular Season MVP
10. Super Bowl MVP
11. 1st Place Offense
12. Top 10 Offense
13. Regular Season 4QC
14. Regular Season GWD
15. Playoff 4QC
16. Playoff GWD
17. Completion % Leader
18. Passing Yard Leader
19. Passing Touchdown Leader
20. Interception % Leader
21. Passer Rating Leader

And the below with context

22. Completion %
23. Passing Yards
24. Touchdowns
25. Interception %
26. TD/INT Ratio
27. Passer Rating

Good list.

I'd add Playoff Win %

I'd be interested in seeing separate two tabs.

One tab with the bold and the other team with the un-bolded.

For the bold you'll see winners who also had talent on offense, very good defenses and great coaches who knew how to win.

For the unbold you MIGHT also see the same names but you'll also have the gunslingers.

 

[farn]

The problem is, and will always be, it's hard to quantify ice veins... it's also very difficult to compare eras - what a QB was asked to do vs what they are asked today. In the end, if I need a QB, I'd want Brady first, Montana second, and then a group of HoFers in a large "third pool".

 

[Nehalem]

Yes, 30th based only on Hall of Fame worthiness, which isn't the same as 30th in a vacuum. Based on crtieria used by Hall voters to determine who gets into the Hall, he would be the 30th most likely to get in. That's not a certain statement, but it's the best esimate I can make because the overall power numbers match up with Hall selections.

Put another way its the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Greatest Players.

From a certain point of view winning 2 SBs, beating the GOAT, is Fame.

So if you were trying to rank Greatest QBs, ranking Eli at 30 is absurd. But if its ranking whether or not he will get into the HOF maybe its an accurate list.

 

[yukon cornelius]

pretty cool

i still have a hard time placing much weight on 'wins' when looking at QBs......wins are team stats, and i have a hard time letting go of that.....yes, a QB directs an offense that is one of the major components of a teams performance........but.....it's still a team stat