PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

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


This has an opening post with good commentary and information, which we definitely recommend reading.
I was just looking up something and came across this article.

Oh my god...no. No.

What in the actual...I mean, this guy is writing about these guys like he understands football history.

This list has it all. I can assure you you’ll enjoy how each plot twist is more gruesome than the last. A patient, five minute skim/scroll is worth it here.

"Eli Manning 7th? Oh my!" - **** Enberg

As if jumping to the end to see Elway #1 didn't already have me chuckling.

Regards,
Chris
 
I was just looking up something and came across this article.

Oh my god...no. No.

What in the actual...I mean, this guy is writing about these guys like he understands football history.

This list has it all. I can assure you you’ll enjoy how each plot twist is more gruesome than the last. A patient, five minute skim/scroll is worth it here.

[/URL]
8C05538A-E590-4476-B799-AFDF7EBCBE86.jpeg

#1 John Elway
#6 Troy Aikman
#7 Eli Manning
#11 Otto Graham
#13 Johnny Unitas
#14 Roger Staubach
#15 Steve Young
#27 Bart Starr
#31 Sid Luckman
#32 Sammy Baugh

Like you said, this guy writes the article like he understands football :rofl:
 
That's interesting about Tarkenton. I've always had him in the 15-25ish range. I've seen some lists online that have him as high as 9-12 range. Almost all of those lists also had Marino in the top 5 so I kind of see a correlation.

It seems we're both missing something with Marino. Maybe someone that ranks him in the Top 10 can explain their reasoning.

I see you define All-Pro with both First team and Second team. I might implement that into my numbers, because I've only been using First team.

The highest I've personally ranked Elway is 9th. But right now he's in the 11-13 range for me.
Marino scores high because his peak was amazing. His 84 season is rightfully legendary. He torched the 85 Bears and made it to the AFCCG. His 86 season is like Brady's SB52 over a full season...a shining beacon in an otherwise crapfest. Everyone remembers early Marino very well and since first impressions are everything, that's the image that gets carried into the 90s.

Regards,
Chris
 
Longevity has to play some factor too. Unless you’d like a certain scrambling Ravens QB in the top 25. Longevity isn’t some gigantic x-factor where I’m doubling everyone’s overall score because they played twice as many seasons, but an elite quarterback like Manning or Staubach are both adding a lot of value to their teams, and it’s hard to catch up with someone who did that for twice as long. I’ve made adjustments to push Manning down and move Staubach up, but I don’t see Staubach passing Manning. Also, 10 All-Pros to 1 All-Pro. Yikes, screw the awards voters. Though he could move up as some old timers get a little less credit.
Longevity is without a doubt a very tricky factor.

Step away from football for a minute, and consider baseball, where getting 3000 career base hits is a guarantee to their Hall of Fame. If someone starts his major league career early enough, avoids major injuries and hangs on long enough, he could accumulate 3000 hits with a career batting average in the vicinity of .250 (150 hits per year x 20 years) - an average that used to be borderline for being benched. Meanwhile someone who had 200 hits (considered to be a great number) every year for twelve years would fall far short of that 3000 career number, perhaps to the point of not being voted in.

Back to football.

For quite some time there has been a constant adjustment of the rules; more fans prefer 31-28 than 17-13, or 24-17 to 13-6. That creates differences in the yearly stats, which have already been nicely accounted for in this masterpiece of QB rankings. Those rule/officiating changes have also led to another side effect: along with better medical science and body/health knowledge and training, there are fewer injuries - leading to longer careers. It used to be that once your QB hit age 30 it was time to start planning on a replacement; now that age is considered to be just hitting his prime. Top QBs had 10-12 year careers with an occasional anomaly of 15-17 years; now playing at age 38 or older is no big deal.

The end result is that QBs playing today or recently retired - as well as those playing in the future - will have raw career numbers skewed in their favor. This due to not just by playing in a high scoring era, but also by playing in a time when the length of their career is typically much longer.

Going back to the baseball analogy for a moment, in that sport I have long felt that the best comparison between players was to look at their best eight years (or a similar number), rather than just their final career totals. I'm not sure if that is worth doing here or not, since there is already an adjustment for previous eras; this probably applies more to those that simply look at career totals to assess and compile a greatest of all time ranking list.


Edit: just saw your previous comment on post #118 where you are addressing the longevity factor....
 
View attachment 30882

#1 John Elway
#6 Troy Aikman
#7 Eli Manning
#11 Otto Graham
#13 Johnny Unitas
#14 Roger Staubach
#15 Steve Young
#27 Bart Starr
#31 Sid Luckman
#32 Sammy Baugh

Like you said, this guy writes the article like he understands football :rofl:
That "breakdown" gave me diarrhea
 
Several people have mentioned Dan Fouts, so I did a bit of research on his career. He did next to nothing in his first five seasons, then in year #7 set the NFL record for most yards passing in a single season. In the next two years he broke that record a second and third time, and probably would have done so a fourth consecutive time in 1982 if not for it being shortened due to the strike. He was only 31 at the time but would never play a full season again, missing 20 games over the next five years and then retiring.

Despite the slow start and all the injuries towards the end, he still somehow threw for 43,000 yards. The overall won-loss record (86-84-1) was not great, though it should also be noted that the Chargers won only four games that he missed with those injuries in his final five years. 3-4 in the playoffs with three very good games - and two horrible five-interception games.

Fouts may be a good example of a QB who is ranked highly based on a few great seasons without a lot of longevity. Kurt Warner and Andrew Luck are probably better, more extreme examples.



 
Add a "Nemesis" column/category for tie-breaking purposes. Brady and Peyton would have each other. Montana would have the Giants. Roethlisberger would have Brady. Young would have the Cowboys and Packers. Staubach would have the Steelers. Marino would have his defense.

Having a good foil should be worth something.

Regards,
Chris
 
Several people have mentioned Dan Fouts, so I did a bit of research on his career. He did next to nothing in his first five seasons, then in year #7 set the NFL record for most yards passing in a single season. In the next two years he broke that record a second and third time, and probably would have done so a fourth consecutive time in 1982 if not for it being shortened due to the strike. He was only 31 at the time but would never play a full season again, missing 20 games over the next five years and then retiring.

Despite the slow start and all the injuries towards the end, he still somehow threw for 43,000 yards. The overall won-loss record (86-84-1) was not great, though it should also be noted that the Chargers won only four games that he missed with those injuries in his final five years. 3-4 in the playoffs with three very good games - and two horrible five-interception games.

Fouts may be a good example of a QB who is ranked highly based on a few great seasons without a lot of longevity. Kurt Warner and Andrew Luck are probably better, more extreme examples.



1978: Rule changes allowing OL to extend arms and use hands, plus eliminating DB contact beyond 5yds.

1978: Welcome to the NFL, John Jefferson.

1979: Welcome to the NFL, Kellen Winslow.

"Wooooooo!" - Dan Fouts & Don Coryell

Regards,
Chris
 
Last edited:
View attachment 30882

#1 John Elway
#6 Troy Aikman
#7 Eli Manning
#11 Otto Graham
#13 Johnny Unitas
#14 Roger Staubach
#15 Steve Young
#27 Bart Starr
#31 Sid Luckman
#32 Sammy Baugh

Like you said, this guy writes the article like he understands football :rofl:

1614879674114.png
1614879693152.png

Imagine that ranking system that values an extra 1,000 passing yards, 12 TD and a Comeback Player of the Year award over over tremendous defificts in championships, postseason success, regular season record, interception rate, passer rating, MVPs, Super Bowl MVPs, pro bowls and all-pros.
 
Last edited:
@Deus Irae
@Bleedthrough

What about a peak rating score to account for someone like Marino? Adjusting his passer rating for era, his 1984 season will be right up there with the best and if you emphasize that score, he should move up the list. I think without having something like that for Marino, we ae blending him with guys who didn't make a historical impact with some extremely high peak play.
 
One issue with de-ranking Manning: he played 17 seasons. Young and Staubach combined (actual games played, not career length) for 17 seasons.

I’m working on some kind of “crunch” where the system is less beholden to career value added and can be adjusted to combine efficiency. So if Staubach did 75% as much Manning in 50% of the time, it stands to reason he’s more valuable per year.
Yeah and just to point out again, I get that there's probably no way to work it all out. That's why nobody's ever gotten it "right" to the point of universal acceptance.
 
@Deus Irae
@Bleedthrough

What about a peak rating score to account for Marino? Adjusting his passer rating for era, his 1984 season will be right up there with the best and if you emphasize that score, he should move up the list.
I’ve seen people on the RealGM NBA forum use Peak (best season) and Prime (5 best seasons) in their formula. Might be worth a try to see if it changes anything?
 
@Deus Irae
@Bleedthrough

What about a peak rating score to account for Marino? Adjusting his passer rating for era, his 1984 season will be right up there with the best and if you emphasize that score, he should move up the list.
Marino's a pain in the ass. He was a brilliant pure passer, but a **** leader. He was often saddled with lesser defenses, but didn't win even when that wasn't the case. His individual ability makes you think he should have been the best ever, but his overall production makes you think he shouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list. He was, and is, considered an elite QB, but he didn't win like an elite QB, and he didn't seem to elevate his team very much. He had a HOF head coach, but that same head coach was in obvious decline for much of the Marino tenure. He had far too many bad postseason games, and a sub .500 postseason record, but he had 3 postseasons in a row where his postseason losses were to the teams that ended up representing the AFC in the Super Bowl (and, yet another "But", but there was a 4 year playoff absence between that first loss and the next two).

Elway and Favre are pains in the asses, too, but for more straightforward reasons.
 
I’ve seen people on the RealGM NBA forum use Peak (best season) and Prime (5 best seasons) in their formula. Might be worth a try to see if it changes anything?
Giving credit to a prime or peak is good, but be ready to see guys like Warner, Fouts and even early 90s Young and mid-late 90s Favre get boosts.

Regards,
Chris
 
Giving credit to a prime or peak is good, but be ready to see guys like Warner, Fouts and even early 90s Young and mid-late 90s Favre get boosts.

Regards,
Chris
Yeah I personally wouldn’t do it. Mainly because I wonder if it will shoot Fouts and Warner up too high? But I can see where some are coming from if they want to put more value into peak and prime. I’ve always preferred looking at the whole picture.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I personally wouldn’t do it. But I can see where some are coming from if they want to put more value into peak and prime. I’ve always preferred looking at the whole picture.
On the flip side, factoring a peak or prime may help differentiate guys like Fouts and Warner from guys like Eli or Rivers...guys who had long careers as solid QBs who never singularly amazed and whose longevity is more the reason they are on this list.

Regards,
Chris
 
Yeah and just to point out again, I get that there's probably no way to work it all out. That's why nobody's ever gotten it "right" to the point of universal acceptance.

You're right...but you're someone with clear passion and knowledge about the QB position. If the rankings aren't capturing something important, I think it's important to investigate it and at least try to make it adjustable.

With Marino, I do hope/suspect that a lack of peak score that's a big part of why he's not moving up despite any type of adjustment attempts; I think it's something that we know intuitively about him, that he was so great in the mid-80s, there should be some mechanism to account for that. This is why I like getting your feedback. Feel free to rant and rave all you want...all points are good points beause we need all the perspectives we can get. And I like doing this; I'm looking to keep building this and expanding its options rather than closing up shop and sending out some finalized list.

With Marino/Elway, I get what you're saying about why there should be some way to rank them over "the very good but not historically great Big 3" of Rodgers, Brees, and Favre, other than just saying "okay, I'm just going subjective here." I sent you a response last night, and then I woke up today, did some other things, and it clicked that peak score might be what was missing there. That's the thing: there are probably actual data points that support what you're pointing out here, and what others are pointing out...they may be hard to find and aren't showing up with the more traditional input data I've been using, but there's probably something that I'm missing. I want to have a system that's efficient and as simple as possible but accuracy is the most important factor and that sometimes means more complexity.

What I'd love to have in the end is not some end-all, be-all list, but some fairly intuitive adjustments that allow you to fine tune the rankings. And if we can solve the Marino problem, we're likely going to have solved a lot of other problems as well, as we'll have the ability to adjust those out too.

There are other other guys on the list whose peaks are being undervalued, so this option should exist; it's another way to likely water down Eli; another way to likely bridge the gap between Staubach/Young and Manning; and it's a way to leapfrog players who just don't excite you...someone like Roethlisberger or to some degree Brees. Someone's peak play is often the very reason we started getting excited about the NFL to begin with...much like a Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan effect; it's important for the sport itself.
 
You're right...but you're someone with clear passion and knowledge about the QB position. If the rankings aren't capturing something important, I think it's important to investigate it and at least try to make it adjustable.

With Marino, I do hope/suspect that a lack of peak score that's a big part of why he's not moving up despite any type of adjustment attempts; I think it's something that we know intuitively about him, that he was so great in the mid-80s, there should be some mechanism to account for that. This is why I like getting your feedback. Feel free to rant and rave all you want...all points are good points beause we need all the perspectives we can get. And I like doing this; I'm looking to keep building this and expanding its options rather than closing up shop and sending out some finalized list.

With Marino/Elway, I get what you're saying about why there should be some way to rank them over "the very good but not historically great Big 3" of Rodgers, Brees, and Favre, other than just saying "okay, I'm just going subjective here." I sent you a response last night, and then I woke up today, did some other things, and it clicked that peak score might be what was missing there. That's the thing: there are probably actual data points that support what you're pointing out here, and what others are pointing out...they may be hard to find and aren't showing up with the more traditional input data I've been using, but there's probably something that I'm missing. I want to have a system that's efficient and as simple as possible but accuracy is the most important factor and that sometimes means more complexity.

What I'd love to have in the end is not some end-all, be-all list, but some fairly intuitive adjustments that allow you to fine tune the rankings. And if we can solve the Marino problem, we're likely going to have solved a lot of other problems as well, as we'll have the ability to adjust those out too.

There are other other guys on the list whose peaks are being undervalued, so this option should exist; it's another way to likely water down Eli; another way to likely bridge the gap between Staubach/Young and Manning; and it's a way to leapfrog players who just don't excite you...someone like Roethlisberger or to some degree Brees. Someone's peak play is often the very reason we started getting excited about the NFL to begin with...much like a Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan effect; it's important for the sport itself.
Without actually looking at the numbers right now I would think

Marino
Favre
Rodgers
Staubach
Young

all get a slight boost if you incorporate peak

Brees (maybe)
Roethlisberger
Elway

get a slight downgrade

I don’t know if adding peak is enough for Staubach and Young to pass Peyton but I think it would narrow the gap a little. Just don’t see any tinkering that could change the top 6.
 
Last edited:
Yeah and just to point out again, I get that there's probably no way to work it all out. That's why nobody's ever gotten it "right" to the point of universal acceptance.
Is anything universally accepted anymore with "flat earthers" and Qanons running around? Lmao
 
Yeah I personally wouldn’t do it. Mainly because I wonder if it will shoot Fouts and Warner up too high? But I can see where some are coming from if they want to put more value into peak and prime. I’ve always preferred looking at the whole picture.


On the flip side, factoring a peak or prime may help differentiate guys like Fouts and Warner from guys like Eli or Rivers...guys who had long careers as solid QBs who never singularly amazed and whose longevity is more the reason they are on this list.

Regards,
Chris

This leads us to another problem, and it's one that there's never going to be a fix for. It's this inherent contradiction:

  1. Who the "greatest" is should not depend on how long they were that great. Greatness is about all time best, not long term survival. BUT...
  2. Who is the "greatest" should be about guys who not only flashed, but had the most sustained success. Greatness is about sustaining excellence over time, not some short term lightning in a bottle sort of thing.

Finding a way to reconcile the above to the contentment of all is impossible.
 


MORSE: Patriots Draft Needs and Draft Related Info
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/19: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf’s Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/18/24
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/18: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/16: News and Notes
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-14, Mock Draft 3.0, Gilmore, Law Rally For Bill 
Potential Patriot: Boston Globe’s Price Talks to Georgia WR McConkey
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/12: News and Notes
Back
Top