Zack's top 21 QBs of All Time

[GA_Eagle 595]

Elway's defenses consistently shit the bed in the playoffs. Yes, he could have done more, but his defense gave him shit to work with and his offensive line allowed him to get sacked 4 times against Pittsburgh, 4/5/6 times in the Super Bowls against NYG/WAS/SF, and 4 against the Bills. Elway's only two close losses where his interceptions were the cause of the loss were in 1984 against the Steelers and in 1991 against the Bills (the pick-6 was the difference in this game).

 

In each game he was under constant assault behind a poor OL and working with a defense that didn't show up to play. Once Gary Zimmerman and company gave him a line to work with and his defense began performing, he put up some nice games and won two rings.

 

 

 

 

5 and six sacks is partly Elway's fault much like Vick and Ben taking sacks is partly on them. He was a scrambler and would try to make something happen. There's a reason he's second all time in sacks taken and its not just o line. It just happens when you have a scrambling QB. Lets just look at the Super Bowl seasons since it would take me a while to do a recap of 21 play off games.

 

1987 Vs The Giants. Denver 9.5 point dogs. Denver with an Average defense and NY with awesomeness. Denver was over matched in this game and Elway played alright. Not transcendent like the guy on the other team but not terrible either. I'd give him a OK, with kudos for a decent playoff run including The Drive. Only ok vs the Pats but they won anyway. 1 great game 1 mediocre game in the Super Bowl and 1 kinda crappy game in this play off run.

 

1988 vs the Skins. Denver favored by 3 with the #7 defense for pts scored and the #9 for yards allowed. His defense played poorly in the second quarter especially, but Elway's 2 ints in that same quarter sure didn't make it any easier on them. Especially since the Skins turned them into 14 points. I'd say Bad Game and still played poorly regardless of his defense. You wouldn't give Manning a pass on this game and Elway shouldn't get one either. 2 solid-very good games and then a big stink fest by all involved including Elway in the Super Bowl. The picks might not directly lead to a loss but they prevented his team from ever being able to come back and kinda sealed the games.

 

1990 vs 49ers. Best pre-Superbowl playoff run of Elway's career. Too bad it was followed by the worst Super Bowl performance by a whole team, pretty much ever. Elway was at fault here, too. With 108 yards passing and 2 ints to no td's sure didn't help his team much. He did get one short yardage running TD, after the game was long decided... I realize its a team game but if we're talking about somebody else's poor performances in a team game we surely can talk about Elway's. This was the suck. I could give credit if he played well and they lost, See vs. the Giants above. It may not be the only cause of the loss but he should be knocked down a spot just for having played in this game.

 

The later two Super Bowls and their subsequent play off runs (with the exception of the last last game he ever played, Super Bowl 33) Elway was a game manager not great but not bad. He could hand off the ball to Davis and pick up the occasional 1st down to McCaffery, Sharpe or Smith. None of these games are over the top good or incredibly bad. The first Super Bowl win being his worst of this group. I make an exception for his last Super Bowl appearance vs the Falcons because it was one of his better play off performances in his career. Its also a big part the reason I think many people think so highly of Elway's ability in the playoffs.

 

Edit: I guess what I'm saying is I don't see as much in Elway as so many others do. I certainly don't see enough to warrant a top 5 or likely even a top 10 QB all time.

 

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/ElwaJo00/gamelog/post/

Edited July 11, 2013 by GA_Eagle

[BC 331]

Good shit good shit

[Thanatos 2,847]

I am disappointed BC. I saw you had posted in here and thought for sure you were going to complain that Russell Wilson wasn't on this list.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Thanatos19

[GA_Eagle 595]

Elway stuff aside. What are your thoughts on Troy Aikman, Zack?

[DavethePanther 37]

If you don't give a shit about negative rep, why do you mention it every time you get it? No one cares that you don't care.

 

It's funny...I went back over my post and didn't find one mention of Unitas. I wasn't disagreeing with what you said about him. I was calling you out for being way off base on your analysis of the 2009 NFC Title game and for being a dick to a respected member of the boards (which is probably why you got negged, genius) who probably put a good deal of work into that project. Zach may be a wise ass, but talking out of his ass isn't one of his regular hobbies around here. He's one of the smarter posters you'll get to know. Doesn't mean he isn't wrong on occasion.

 

If you disagree with his results (which he caveated from the beginning that some of it was opinion-based), then change your tampon and create your own list with the almighty Unitas at the top. But I have news for you...this isn't the 50's and 60's anymore, and quarterbacks with better overall resumes and talent than him have come along since he hung the cleats up. Blame it on the evolution of the NFL or whatever else you want. If you don't want to accept that, then it's your ignorant burden to bear.

 

You should be happy that he got included in Zach's list, over the countless number of QB's who have played the game since it was invented.

 

First of All the list is flawed just by putting Drew Brees 3rd far ahead of anyone, Including Unitas. Unitas played in an era where Passing was not as free wheeling as today and played 12 games instead of 16. Unitas won 3 Titles two of them back to back. How does Brees qualify? More play off wins? Unitas has nearly more Championship win than D. Brees does playoff wins.

 

Secondly, I didn't even comment on the list until he disrespected a QB that help change the game into what it is today. UNCLUTCH? Anyone that called Unitas UNCLUTCH never saw the man play. PERIOD. So it was a garbage statement. He made it off of his little excel spreadsheet.

 

Thirdly, sorry I didn't get on the f-ing floor and worship the ground he walks on because he spent time on a list trying to prove one of his favorite players is one of the greatest of all time. Whoever that may be. Based on the name I would imagine someone from Pittsburgh. But, thats just a guess.

 

Forth, I am not way off base on the NFC Title game. That was one of the most flawed and unjust games I have ever watch. If I were asked to pick one game I thought the refs were in a back pocket of someone. That would have been it. NEVER SEEN SUCH BLANTANT BS calls in one game going for one team in such a short period. Farve had his miscues but the calls were absolutely terrible. You can call Brees and his greatness out all you want. Two of those calls were in favor of Brees and his greatness in that game. Had those two calls not occurred Brees New Orleans is still on the Super Bowl-less teams. But N.O. was the darling of the NFL that year and it showed in the NFC Championship.

 

Finally, Football transcends many Era's and greatness doesn't subside because the rule committees want to see more points on the board. Sadly most fans don't want to see a defensive dual anymore. It is all about ARENA LEAGUE SCORING. Your disrespect to the Unitas shows how little you know about the man who probably put the passing game on the map in the first place. I would challenge Brees or Brady to try 46 Straight games with a TD with the rule Unitas played under.

[KempBolt 498]

My takes:

 

-I agree that leaving off Unitas basically invalidates the list.

 

-Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, and Eli Manning are all way, way too high. The list shows a clear bias for those who played the game recently.

 

-Dan Marino is way too low.

 

-Leaving Dan Fouts off entirely also makes it difficult for me to take the list seriously.

 

Bottom line- trying to rank the all time best players at any position is really difficult and will inevitably yield big disagreements. But this list in particular is, IMO, more flawed than most. But that's just my take.

[Dutch 874]

Finally, Football transcends many Era's and greatness doesn't subside because the rule committees want to see more points on the board. Sadly most fans don't want to see a defensive dual anymore. It is all about ARENA LEAGUE SCORING. Your disrespect to the Unitas shows how little you know about the man who probably put the passing game on the map in the first place. I would challenge Brees or Brady to try 46 Straight games with a TD with the rule Unitas played under.

 

This is exactly why you can't compare players across eras. They played in entirely different leagues because the circumstances were different. An example with Bart Starr. I see stars*** next to his 9-1 playoff record. Didn't Star get his 5 championships in like 9 games? Wasn't it like one playoff game back then? For some, the number of games within a season was different as well as the playoffs. It's impossible to statistically compare and rate these players when the NFL platform was different. The NFL was still young and in development back then. Totally different circumstances. People don't realize how different the NFL was back then. It was almost a completely different game from what we know it to be now. So statistically, they can't be compared. If it was different circumstances/parameters, how can they be judged using the same method? Not to mention the rules in the passing game has changed drastically and there's no way to factor that into any stats. Too many different variables to consider across the eras. The only judge for this test would be from the eyes; not stats. Stats don't do any justice here.

Edited July 11, 2013 by dutchff7

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

My takes:

 

-I agree that leaving off Unitas basically invalidates the list.

 

-Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, and Eli Manning are all way, way too high. The list shows a clear bias for those who played the game recently.

 

-Dan Marino is way too low.

 

-Leaving Dan Fouts off entirely also makes it difficult for me to take the list seriously.

 

Bottom line- trying to rank the all time best players at any position is really difficult and will inevitably yield big disagreements. But this list in particular is, IMO, more flawed than most. But that's just my take.

 

How exactly is Drew Brees too high? I can see the arguments for Ben and Eli..but not Brees. He's played at an all-time great level for a long time and has been one of the greatest post season QBs ever.

[KempBolt 498]

How exactly is Drew Brees too high? I can see the arguments for Ben and Eli..but not Brees. He's played at an all-time great level for a long time and has been one of the greatest post season QBs ever.

 

It's not that I would downgrade Brees, it's that I like a number of guys ranked behind him (esp Brady and Marino) better than him.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

It's not that I would downgrade Brees, it's that I like a number of guys ranked behind him (esp Brady and Marino) better than him.

 

You know how much I like Brady from previous threads, but he's got an argument to be considered along side Brady, especially seeing as Brady's recent post season struggles(against the Ravens..lol, but still). I wouldn't place him above Brady yet, but he's by no means far off. He's right on Brady's tail.

 

Brees is just as good of a regular season QB as Marino was and is twice the post season QB. He belongs above him.

[KempBolt 498]

I don't weigh superbowl victories very highly at all when considering great QB's. They are a function of team success and I think it's odd that people put so much more stock in them for QB's than they do for any other position. I've never heard anyone try to argue for ranking Ike Taylor ahead of Darrelle Revis because Ike's got two rings to Revis' zero. So I instead rely on the ability which I've seen.

[KempBolt 498]

You know how much I like Brady from previous threads, but he's got an argument to be considered along side Brady, especially seeing as Brady's recent post season struggles(against the Ravens..lol, but still). I wouldn't place him above Brady yet, but he's by no means far off. He's right on Brady's tail.

 

Brees is just as good of a regular season QB as Marino was and is twice the post season QB. He belongs above him.

 

I disagree. Marino had the best field vision, release, and pocket presence I've ever seen. He put up numbers akin to Brees' in an era where it was unheard of. I'll never understand why, specifically for QB's, so much weight is placed on postseasons and superbowls. Makes no sense to me that they're singled out that way.

[Maverick 791]

I don't weigh superbowl victories very highly at all when considering great QB's. They are a function of team success and I think it's odd that people put so much more stock in them for QB's than they do for any other position. I've never heard anyone try to argue for ranking Ike Taylor ahead of Darrelle Revis because Ike's got two rings to Revis' zero. So I instead rely on the ability which I've seen.

 

Foolish comparison. QB and CB are two completely different positions. I'm not saying I factor in SB rings when comparing QBs, but it's not difficult to see why some people do.

[KempBolt 498]

Foolish comparison. QB and CB are two completely different positions. I'm not saying I factor in SB rings when comparing QBs, but it's not difficult to see why some people do.

 

Foolish response. You missed the point. QB's may have more impact on a team than CB's but not to the extent that they should be judged on team success instead of individual ability like everyone else. But thanks for letting me know that QB and CB aren't the same position. Explains a lot.

Edited July 11, 2013 by KempBolt

[Maverick 791]

By the way, nice list, Zack. Regardless of differing opinions, you deserve respect simply for your time and thought put into this.

 

Having said that, Eli is a no-no. Consider that rivalry bias if you'd like, but he doesn't deserve to be in this list. He's an excellent leader and no one can argue he's clutch, but outside of that he's a little better than average. I've watched him shit the bed too many times only to be saved by his defense every now and then.

 

 

Those numbers don't scream "elite QB" to me.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

I disagree. Marino had the best field vision, release, and pocket presence I've ever seen. He put up numbers akin to Brees' in an era where it was unheard of. I'll never understand why, specifically for QB's, so much weight is placed on postseasons and superbowls. Makes no sense to me that they're singled out that way.

 

Marino's skill set is nice and all, but Brees has done a lot of the same things Marino did. I don't really care what the skill set comparison is if the production is the same.

 

Playoff performance is the most important aspect of a QB. Joe Montana is not considered the greatest QB of all time by pretty much everyone because of what he did in the regular season. He elevated his game in the playoffs/or at least kept it at a similar level to his regular season performance. The vast majority of QBs game declines in the playoffs. Which makes what players like Brees, Starr, Eli, etc all the more impressive.

 

QB rating is by no means the definitive way of ranking QBs, but I'm going to use it because it's a relatively simple way to see how a QB's regular season performance translate to a post-season performance

 

Marino had an all-time 86.4 QB rating. His post season QB rating was 77.1.

 

Brees has a 94.3 regular season QB rating. His post season QBR is 103.9.

 

Eli goes from 82.7 to 89.3(This rating is actually hurt pretty badly because of his first ever playoff game where he only threw for 113 yards and 0 tds/3ints).

 

Starr went from 80.5 to 104.8.

 

Now I'm not saying you need to have an increase in QB rating from the regular season to the post season to be considered great..but when your QB rating falls to a below average rating, you have problems. It's hard for QBs to play well in the playoffs, that's no secret..but the greatest ever play in the post-season at a high level.

 

Just to note, not calling Eli one of the greatest ever because I don't think he is, just showing an example of QBs elevating their game in the playoffs.

[KempBolt 498]

Marino's skill set is nice and all, but Brees has done a lot of the same things Marino did. I don't really care what the skill set comparison is if the production is the same.

 

Playoff performance is the most important aspect of a QB. Joe Montana is not considered the greatest QB of all time by pretty much everyone because of what he did in the regular season. He elevated his game in the playoffs/or at least kept it at a similar level to his regular season performance. The vast majority of QBs game declines in the playoffs. Which makes what players like Brees, Starr, Eli, etc all the more impressive.

 

QB rating is by no means the definitive way of ranking QBs, but I'm going to use it because it's a relatively simple way to see how a QB's regular season performance translate to a post-season performance

 

Marino had an all-time 86.4 QB rating. His post season QB rating was 77.1.

 

Brees has a 94.3 regular season QB rating. His post season QBR is 103.9.

 

Eli goes from 82.7 to 89.3(This rating is actually hurt pretty badly because of his first ever playoff game where he only threw for 113 yards and 0 tds/3ints).

 

Starr went from 80.5 to 104.8.

 

Now I'm not saying you need to have an increase in QB rating from the regular season to the post season to be considered great..but when your QB rating falls to a below average rating, you have problems. It's hard for QBs to play well in the playoffs, that's no secret..but the greatest ever play in the post-season at a high level.

 

Just to note, not calling Eli one of the greatest ever because I don't think he is, just showing an example of QBs elevating their game in the playoffs.

 

Marino was putting up his numbers in an era when it was more difficult. Brees is doing it in an era where Matthew Stafford is able to top 5000 yards. Advantage Marino. Assessing skill sets and ability is the only way I know how to compare players from different eras who played under different circumstances.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

Marino was putting up his numbers in an era when it was more difficult. Brees is doing it in an era where Matthew Stafford is able to top 5000 yards. Advantage Marino. Assessing skill sets and ability is the only way I know how to compare players from different eras who played under different circumstances.

 

The different era reasoning isn't really a solid one. Montana is considered the greatest ever despite playing in the same era as Marino. Starr is considered one of the greatest ever despite playing before Marino did.

 

And you can comment all you want about Brees regular season success not being as impressive as it once was when Marino did similar things, but one thing that hasn't changed over the pretty much entire history of the NFL is how much a QB's performance usually falls in the post-season.

 

Only 27 QBs in NFL history have a career post-season QB rating of at least 80.0

 

Only 8 have a rating above 90. Those 8 being, in order of best to "worst", Starr, Brees, Rodgers, Warner, Montana, Sanchez(LOLOLOLOLOLOL holy shit), Ken Anderson and Theismann.

 

Only Starr, Brees, Rodgers and Warner surpass the 100+ QB rating in the playoffs.

 

12 of those 27 that accomplished the 80+ QB rating started in or before 1987, so it's been pretty much just as difficult to put up an average or better QB rating now as it was in the 70s and 80s. No real excuse for Marino on that front.

[KempBolt 498]

The different era reasoning isn't really a solid one. Montana is considered the greatest ever despite playing in the same era as Marino. Starr is considered one of the greatest ever despite playing before Marino did.

 

And you can comment all you want about Brees regular season success not being as impressive as it once was when Marino did similar things, but one thing that hasn't changed over the pretty much entire history of the NFL is how much a QB's performance usually falls in the post-season.

 

Only 27 QBs in NFL history have a career post-season QB rating of at least 80.0

 

Only 8 have a rating above 90. Those 8 being, in order of best to "worst", Starr, Brees, Rodgers, Warner, Montana, Sanchez(LOLOLOLOLOLOL holy shit), Ken Anderson and Theismann.

 

Only Starr, Brees, Rodgers and Warner surpass the 100+ QB rating in the playoffs.

 

12 of those 27 that accomplished the 80+ QB rating started in or before 1987, so it's been pretty much just as difficult to put up an average or better QB rating now as it was in the 70s and 80s. No real excuse for Marino on that front.

 

You lost me here. You seem to be saying that arguments based on era are invalid, but then you go on to explain why some QB's are regarded as being great based partially on the era in which they played.

 

I don't put much stock into postseason performance or superbowl victories. You do, and that's fine. I find it to be too small of a sample size that's weighted too heavily in deciding who was/is better than who.

[Maverick 791]

Foolish response. You missed the point. QB's may have more impact on a team than CB's but not to the extent that they should be judged on team success instead of individual ability like everyone else. But thanks for letting me know that QB and CB aren't the same position. Explains a lot.

 

There's a reason quarterbacks get the glory when they win and blame when they lose. The ball is in their hands every offensive play. The offense starts with the QB. One crucial move could win or lose their team the game - more so than any other position in the NFL. Taking those facts into account, you should be able to understand that it's not difficult to see why some people take SB victories into account. That's all I'm saying. Your OP thought it was ridiculous that people consider that a factor and I'm just trying to give you a little nudge and say, "Hey, no it's not."

 

And you're welcome. Any other questions relating to football just shoot me a PM.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

You lost me here. You seem to be saying that arguments based on era are invalid, but then you go on to explain why some QB's are regarded as being great based partially on the era in which they played.

 

I don't put much stock into postseason performance or superbowl victories. You do, and that's fine. I find it to be too small of a sample size that's weighted too heavily in deciding who was/is better than who.

 

No, era doesn't matter much to me when you go back to the 80s..when you hit the 60s, early 70s, sure...but the 80s? The same era that had Montana, Marino, Elway and Fouts among others? Nah, that doesn't fly with me. We've got about 4-5 elite QBs right now(Peyton, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, maybe Roethlisberger). You had about 5 back then. Then you had Theismann, Simms, Esiason, etc like we've got Flacco, Eli, Ryan and the like now. Maybe the overall play has slightly elevated, but not enough for me to consider a drastic difference.

 

I don't put any stock in to victories. But when it's proven that the vast majority of QBs fail when the post season pressure is put on them, how can you not make post season performance one of, if not your most important factor when judging a QB? They're the most important games and they're the most difficult games for QBs to perform in. It only makes sense to use that as your biggest reasoning.

[oochymp 2,393]

I don't put much stock into postseason performance or superbowl victories. You do, and that's fine. I find it to be too small of a sample size that's weighted too heavily in deciding who was/is better than who.

I'm glad to see that this has already been said, makes me think I won't be ridiculed as much for saying this (but I would have anyway)

 

I think too much weight is being put on the postseason, case in point the Eli v. Peyton debate, I don't see any reason to take Eli over Peyton, I'll elaborate later when I have more time, but the summary is I'd rather have a guy who's going to get me to the playoffs consistently than someone who's just going to do well if we can get him to the playoffs

[KempBolt 498]

There's a reason quarterbacks get the glory when they win and blame when they lose. The ball is in their hands every offensive play. The offense starts with the QB. One crucial move could win or lose their team the game - more so than any other position in the NFL. Taking those facts into account, you should be able to understand that it's not difficult to see why some people take SB victories into account. That's all I'm saying. Your OP thought it was ridiculous that people consider that a factor and I'm just trying to give you a little nudge and say, "Hey, no it's not."

 

And you're welcome. Any other questions relating to football just shoot me a PM.

 

I understand that. My point is that the reason is invalid and that they get too much credit/glory.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

I'm glad to see that this has already been said, makes me think I won't be ridiculed as much for saying this (but I would have anyway)

 

I think too much weight is being put on the postseason, case in point the Eli v. Peyton debate, I don't see any reason to take Eli over Peyton, I'll elaborate later when I have more time, but the summary is I'd rather have a guy who's going to get me to the playoffs consistently than someone who's just going to do well if we can get him to the playoffs

 

Peyton does rank over Eli for me, and most people. I imagine he probably does for Zack, too. Zack's rankings are stats based only, really.(Meaning heavy emphasis on post season stats)

 

Regular season matters. Just not nearly as much as post season performance. I would take Marino and Peyton over the likes of Eli, Flacco, Roethlisberger, etc. But when you get the likes of someone like Brees, who is elite in the regular season, and arguably the greatest post season QB of all time, it's a no brainer to take him over Peyton and Marino. I honestly see no argument that can be made to take Peyton and Marino over the likes of Brees, but I'm open to hearing them if you(or anyone else) has one.

Edited July 11, 2013 by .AirMcNair.

[KempBolt 498]

Peyton does rank over Eli for me, and most people. I imagine he probably does for Zack, too. Zack's rankings are stats based only, really.(Meaning heavy emphasis on post season stats)

 

Regular season matters. Just not nearly as much as post season performance. I would take Marino and Peyton over the likes of Eli, Flacco, Roethlisberger, etc. But when you get the likes of someone like Brees, who is elite in the regular season, and arguably the greatest post season QB of all time, it's a no brainer to take him over Peyton and Marino. I honestly see no argument that can be made to take Peyton and Marino over the likes of Brees, but I'm open to hearing them if you(or anyone else) has one.

 

Ok, here goes: Marino was better than Brees...

 

I will say I take a lot smaller of an exception to Brees at #3 than I do a lot of the other issues on that list. If that was the only problem I saw with it, I'd have to call it pretty darn good.