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

[Zarozzor]

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.

Honestly while I was up through the night getting the numbers, when I saw that Unitas and Starr were below .500 against teams with winning records I sat there for a few seconds in shock. Did not expect that.

 

[NE_Zealot]

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 can never put Peyton ahead of Montana IMO. The greatest of the great have a marriage of rings and stats. Manning was trash when it mattered most in playoff football more often than not.

Montana has twice the rings as Manning, very good stats considering he basically missed two years in 1991-1992 and was money in the big spot. Rings count more than people want to admit, you play to be the best, period. Ask Pey-Pey how many MVPs he’d trade for jewelry, my guess is all of them.

 

[RobertWeathers]

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

You are putting so much work into this and its fantastic.

I HATE how high Peyton is but since you incorporated some of my suggestions by weighing important stuff (winning %, 4th qtr drives, playoff wins (win % he sucks), SB wins.) he in indeed up there.

It is what it is.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Honestly while I was up through the night getting the numbers, when I saw that Unitas and Starr were below .500 against teams with winning records I sat there for a few seconds in shock. Did not expect that.

There is always context behind numbers but what it says is Roeth was a good QB who won games vs good teams.

I hate how high he is but like I just told Ice it is what it is.

 

[Zarozzor]

There is always context behind numbers but what it says is Roeth was a good QB who won games vs good teams.

I hate how high he is but like I just told Ice it is what it is.

I agree. I’ve never liked Peyton but when I look at all the numbers in front of me in comparison with other quarterbacks and try to weigh everything, I just can’t see him below 6. Of course I don’t have Baugh and Luckman in my top 10 even though I really want to. One of my main issues is the lack of info on their W/L records.

I can see why some people have Peyton as high as 3 behind Brady and Montana. Obviously quite a few either don’t count or just don’t have the info to rate Graham, Starr, and Unitas high and I get that.

For me it’s Brady as the obvious #1. Then Graham or Montana at #2 and #3. Then #4-6 are some order of Manning, Starr, and Unitas.

@Ice_Ice_Brady spreadsheet lines up with my thinking that there’s a decent sized gap between #6 and #7. I’d lean Staubach at #7 and Young at #8 at the moment.

Of course the fun is going through all the stats and info, and seeing if your list changes after looking at it all. Who knows, I could change mine in a week.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Honestly while I was up through the night getting the numbers, when I saw that Unitas and Starr were below .500 against teams with winning records I sat there for a few seconds in shock. Did not expect that.

On the other hand, those guys are at .62 and .65 winning percentages overall, which is theoretically against a .500 opponent. So I think it makes sense that most of their losses - are to better teams on the winning side of that line. Roethlsiberger and Wilson are both a little above .67 and are still a few win/loss flips also being under .500.

One thing that makes the stat really weird is something I noticed this year when Timmy was crapping on Tampa Bay's record against "teams that .500 or greater".

Applying that "record against .500 or greater teams," the Bucs played (independent of their own result):
-The 7-8 Bears
-The 7-8 Vikings
-The 8-7 Raiders
-The 7-8 Chargers

They went 3-1 against those teams, resulting in a 1-0 record against "teams that are .500 or greater." If they'd lost all 4 games, they'd still be 0-4 against teams with a .500 or greater record.

I'm sure someone really good at math could explain this, but it's a strange thing that happens. And it also applies to the "teams with a winning record" as well...if they'd lost to the Raiders, it would count as a loss, but beating the Raiders makes the Raiders ineligible. In the end, you can really only get credit by beating teams that are 9-6 or better independent of your game.

I don't expect anyone to actually do this, but I bet if you created a measure that was for teams "greater than .500 independent of the game being measured" you might get some different results and find that Unitas and Starr were over .500.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I agree. I’ve never liked Peyton but when I look at all the numbers in front of me in comparison with other quarterbacks and try to weigh everything, I just can’t see him below 6. Of course I don’t have Baugh and Luckman in my top 10 even though I really want to. One of my main issues is the lack of info on their W/L records.

I can see why some people have Peyton as high as 3 behind Brady and Montana. Obviously quite a few either don’t count or just don’t have the info to rate Graham, Starr, and Unitas high and I get that.

For me it’s Brady as the obvious #1. Then Graham or Montana at #2 and #3. Then #4-6 are some order of Manning, Starr, and Unitas.

@Ice_Ice_Brady spreadsheet lines up with my thinking that there’s a decent sized gap between #6 and #7. I’d lean Staubach at #7 and Young at #8 at the moment.

Of course the fun is going through all the stats and info, and seeing if your list changes after looking at it all. Who knows, I could change mine in a week.

Every since I was a little kid (late 70s early 80s) I have always felt Terry Bradshaw was one of the greatest QBs of all time.

I still feel that way but the numbers, winning % vs good teams do not support my position.

However....if you needed to win 1 game (which I how I un-quantitatively determine GOATness) he absolutely in the discussion ahead of some of the people you just mentioned.

Manning is not in the Top 10 or Top 15.

 

[Zarozzor]

On the other hand, those guys are at .62 and .65 winning percentages overall, which is theoretically against a .500 opponent. So I think it makes sense that most of their losses - are to better teams on the winning side of that line. Roethlsiberger and Wilson are both a little above .67 and are still a few win/loss flips also being under .500.

One thing that makes the stat really weird is something I noticed this year when Timmy was crapping on Tampa Bay's record against "teams that .500 or greater".

Applying that "record against .500 or greater teams," the Bucs played (independent of their own result):
-The 7-8 Bears
-The 7-8 Vikings
-The 8-7 Raiders
-The 7-8 Chargers

They went 3-1 against those teams, resulting in a 1-0 record against "teams that are .500 or greater." If they'd lost all 4 games, they'd still be 0-4 against teams with a .500 or greater record.

I'm sure someone really good at math could explain this, but it's a strange thing that happens. And it also applies to the "teams with a winning record" as well...if they'd lost to the Raiders, it would count as a loss, but beating the Raiders makes the Raiders ineligible. In the end, you can really only get credit by beating teams that are 9-6 or better independent of your game.

The 8-8 thing was really annoying. Especially with Brady, because it seemed like he had tons of wins against 8-8 teams. Like in 2011, he beat seven 8-8 teams.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

You are putting so much work into this and its fantastic.

I HATE how high Peyton is but since you incorporated some of my suggestions by weighing important stuff (winning %, 4th qtr drives, playoff wins (win % he sucks), SB wins.) he in indeed up there.

It is what it is.

I hate it too. Trust me.

The issue is if we in even more of a CHOKE index, imagine what it will do to guys who are already being penalized for lack of playoff success: Moon, Tarkenton, Fouts, Kelly, Marino, Jurgenson...they’ll go into Eli territory.

It’s possible he takes his rightful place below Starr and Unitas with some type of clever ranking maneuvering, but #6 is the floor. I think he’s somewhere 4-6.

 

[Nehalem]

I hate it too. Trust me.

The issue is if we in even more of a CHOKE index, imagine what it will do to guys who are already being penalized for lack of playoff success: Moon, Tarkenton, Fouts, Kelly, Marino, Jurgenson...they’ll go into Eli territory.

It’s possible he takes his rightful place below Starr and Unitas with some type of clever ranking maneuvering, but #6 is the floor. I think he’s somewhere 4-6.

4 consecutive SB appearances is an odd definition of lack of playoff success.

 

[Nehalem]

The 8-8 thing was really annoying. Especially with Brady, because it seemed like he had tons of wins against 8-8 teams. Like in 2011, he beat seven 8-8 teams.

Would be interesting to see a break down of performance against 7-9 or better teams instead of just winning teams.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

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.

Brady is the elephant in the room with these Excel formulas, just bracing for what kind of absurd number is going to come up when some new adjustment attempt is tested.

Lmao

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

4 consecutive SB appearances is an odd definition of lack of playoff success.

I should clarify I mean numerical success within the current scoring system.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I hate it too. Trust me.

The issue is if we in even more of a CHOKE index, imagine what it will do to guys who are already being penalized for lack of playoff success: Moon, Tarkenton, Fouts, Kelly, Marino, Jurgenson...they’ll go into Eli territory.

It’s possible he takes his rightful place below Starr and Unitas with some type of clever ranking maneuvering, but #6 is the floor. I think he’s somewhere 4-6.

My god I loved Dan Fouts and those Charger teams of the early 80s. So much fun to watch.

Cheap ownership and bad defense...but that team played hard.

I sympathize a little for QBs with bad defenses. They always needed to make something happen. The problem is when the ventured beyond their, or the receiver's capabilities bad things happened- especially vs good defenses/better teams.

See what you can do to knock Manning below Starr and Unitas. All would be well in the NFL Universe

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

How laborious has been pulling all this data? I know Pro Football Reference doesn't offer all this at the click of 1 button.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Tony2046]

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%

If you don't put Peyton Manning at rank third or better, immediately, someone is going to drop a stinky in their drawers.

Good stuff by the way.

 

[venecol]

Who the hell is Dutch Clark and what did he do to make it to HOF after only playing 5 years.

I'm ok with Peyton as long as he doesn't medal.

 

[Tony2046]

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

Why does Montana have only 10 years?

I've always ranked Staubach higher than PM. He actually participated in all four super bowls. Invented the Hail Mary. Had a normal sized head. PM invented locker T-bagging.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Of course I don’t have Baugh and Luckman in my top 10 even though I really want to. One of my main issues is the lack of info on their W/L records.

@Ice_Ice_Brady spreadsheet lines up with my thinking that there’s a decent sized gap between #6 and #7. I’d lean Staubach at #7 and Young at #8 at the moment.

Interesting idea about Young/Staubach replacing Baugh/Luckman there; Baugh/Luckman certainly might be over ranked. I think my that my tiers are built on a simple ranking of 2 different factors: winning and performance (individual). Let’s just say that each one gets an A, B, or C, so for example. This is what I get pretty consistently:

AA Tier (1-6) - Era Dominators
Brady (A+A, so he must be #1)
Montana (AA)
Unitas (AA)
Starr (AA)
Manning (AA)
Graham (AA)

There’s almost no way to push one of these guys out of you’re being consistent in your rankings. All of them dominated their eras and have no flaws on paper; it’s mostly hair splitting about A+, A, and A- stuff.

AA* Tier (7-8, or 7-15) - Pre-modern Era Dominators
Baugh (AA*)
Luckman (AA*)

They have the AA credentials, but there are a few question marks about accurate win/loss information and sometimes their role in the offense (and whether a starter sometimes.). Also question about how far away from the modern passing QB you’ll go where you’re still comparing the same thing.

AB/BA Tier (9-14, or 7-14) - Imperfect Era Dominators
Young (BA)
Staubach (AB)
Favre (BA)
Brees (BA)
Rodgers (BA)
Elway (AB)

Young and Staubach seem to get favored because they accomplished a lot with shorter careers and have less of a “missed opportunity” reputation. It’s easier to justify Young’s one title or Staubach’s one all-pro than it is to explain one title for Brees, Favre, and Rodgers or a comparatively poor statistical output by Elway.

B+B+/A-A- Tier (10-20) - Dawson’s Creek
Dawson

Dawson can swing all the way up to #10 of free fall to near #20. It depends on how much you like the higher floor or the lower ceiling and also how much you value AFL accomplishments.

AC/CA Tier (15-20) - Half Great
Marino (CA)
Tarkenton (CA)
Bradshaw (AC)
Roethlisberger (AC)
Layne (AC)

These aren’t the only players in this tier. Marino and Bradshaw are the important ones on the spreadsheet because they force me to really weight championships or awards. You can also see other BB players (Kelly) or AB/BA guys who don’t have the longevity (Wilson), but I find those five are most common. Someone like Aikman, I think, might be either a B in winning (accounting for his win pct too) or even a C- in individual performance, so he doesn’t show up here.

A lot of the changes I try to make are to account for the intra-tier rankings and not to place guys into entirely new ones. Curious to see what your ranking tiers look like...are they similar?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Why does Montana have only 10 years?

I've always ranked Staubach higher than PM. He actually participated in all four super bowls. Invented the Hail Mary. Had a normal sized head. PM invented locker T-bagging.

Montana has 10 seasons, accounting for games played (lots of injuries.)