Zack's top 21 QBs of All Time

[Dutch 874]

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)

 

How are you making exceptions for Zack's list lol? He also already said that he didn't just use stats to evaluate the players.

Edited July 11, 2013 by dutchff7

[AllYouNeedIsLovie 377]

I agree with Kemp that many people do put too much emphasis on Superbowls and wins when comparing QB's (not so much here than on other sites). I've had this debate so many times with idiotic Bucs fans who blame Freeman for every single Bucs loss. People seem to forget that football is a team sport, and there are way too many players/factors to put the blame/fame on one certain player. I definitely think it should be factored in for QB's and I understand where people are coming from because a QB does have the ball in his hands every play, but some people seem to live and die by it.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

How are you making exceptions for Zack's list lol? He also already said that he didn't just use stats to evaluate the players.

 

lol, I just now noticed in his post he explicitly says he'll take Eli over Peyton and Marino..I dunno about all that..

 

But that's why it's an opinion, I reckon. He values post season performance even more than I do. That's saying something, lol.

[Phins4life 271]

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.

 

I agree and disagree with you here. It's that dual opinion that makes these discussions so difficult for me. On the one hand, I understand that the QB touches the ball more than any other player on the team...that alone constitutes more accountability. Also, they are in charge of conducting the pace of a drive (depending on the trust of the coach) and scanning the defense pre-snap. History has shown us that QB's who can and can't do this are pretty easy to spot, so it's a valid criteria.

 

Where it gets murky for me is where the accountability lies once the ball leaves the QB's hand, either via handoff or pass (if it even touches him to begin with a la direct snap). Did the RB get shaky and fuck up the handoff? Did the receiver run a sloppy route and end up out of position? Did the pass get deflected before being picked off? Did the other defense just lie down and let the opponent's offense walk all over them? Was the coach just out of his gourd calling stupid plays all day? Unless we go over each playoff drive by every QB on this list with a fine toothed comb to determine the exact value of the play, to some extent we are only relying on the numbers at face value. Who won the game? How many INT/TD/yards, etc. The QBs who throw 3 scores and no picks are the easy ones. No one can argue with a straight face that Flacco had an average post-season last year. But what about the ones who go 1:2 or even worse? Unless we analyze each play, we don't truly know who is ultimately accountable for the incompletion, or the fumble, or the loss of yards, or the interception that may have cost the game and tainted the QB's post-season record.

 

Using Dan as an example (but I would use this defense for anyone), his post-season record, at face value, isn't impressive. His passer rating...not impressive. His numbers in general...not overly impressive. But how much was his fault and how much of the blame belongs on everyone else? You could compare his stellar regular season play to his post-season play and chalk it up as being a choke artist, but again, who else is to blame? Using the "6 degrees of [QB name here]" just doesn't feel right, considering no other position undergoes that kind of scrutiny. If anything, the playoff record argument should only include those games where the QB had a definitive role in the outcome, since we all know there are games where the QB rode the coat tails of his defense to victory and games where the QB stole the show from start to end.

 

Don't mistake this for me saying post-season play and rings don't matter. They do...I would just see the argument adjusted to statistics that that truly reflect the QB's responsibility in the outcome of playoff games. I'm also a realist and understand this probably won't be possible.

 

At the end of the day I know that the numbers are going to have their say, and I understand it. I just wish other players had to deal with the same scrutiny.

[KempBolt 498]

I agree with Kemp that many people do put too much emphasis on Superbowls and wins when comparing QB's (not so much here than on other sites). I've had this debate so many times with idiotic Bucs fans who blame Freeman for every single Bucs loss. People seem to forget that football is a team sport, and there are way too many players/factors to put the blame/fame on one certain player. I definitely think it should be factored in for QB's and I understand where people are coming from because a QB does have the ball in his hands every play, but some people seem to live and die by it.

 

My thoughts exactly. I have no problem recognizing that QB's have more of an impact than any other position, but not so much that they should be held to vastly different standards of assessment. As has been mentioned, signal callers get too much blame in losses and too much credit in wins- but just because that's true doesn't make it correct. I think at least part of the problem is that the majority of football fans are ball watchers who don't pay attention to the other 10 guys on the field that are doing good or bad things while the QB has the football.

 

I'm wondering, would people say it's fair to say Barry Sanders wasn't really a top 5 running back? Because in 5 career PO games he had a 4.2 YPC (compared to regular season average of 5.0), scored 1 TD (.2 per game compared to .65 per game in the regular season), and averaged 5.2 YPR (compared to a regular season averages of 8.3). Didn't exactly "elevate" his game in the postseason.

[BJORN 679]

Just to add on to Phins post, you also have to consider the defense faced, Brady vs Eli in both superbowls....who was under more pressure Eli or Brady? Eli beats Brady both times yet everyone here would pick Brady over Eli. There are just too many factors to account for when dismissing one QB and praising another because they face different circumstances.

Edited July 11, 2013 by BJORN

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

My thoughts exactly. I have no problem recognizing that QB's have more of an impact than any other position, but not so much that they should be held to vastly different standards of assessment. As has been mentioned, signal callers get too much blame in losses and too much credit in wins- but just because that's true doesn't make it correct. I think at least part of the problem is that the majority of football fans are ball watchers who don't pay attention to the other 10 guys on the field that are doing good or bad things while the QB has the football.

 

I'm wondering, would people say it's fair to say Barry Sanders wasn't really a top 5 running back? Because in 5 career PO games he had a 4.2 YPC (compared to regular season average of 5.0), scored 1 TD (.2 per game compared to .65 per game in the regular season), and averaged 5.2 YPR (compared to a regular season averages of 8.3). Didn't exactly "elevate" his game in the postseason.

 

It's definitely an interesting theory to try and apply to other positions. I don't have nearly enough research done on RBs in the post season(mostly just what I have seen in the what will now be my 15th year of watching the NFL(started in 99).

 

Might be something worth looking in to, though.

[Dutch 874]

Like I've said before, you can't solely judge a QB off of Superbowls or post season wins. However, you can base it on how QBs perform in those big games; win or loss and factor in the rest of the teams performance as well. Observation (always), circumstance and perspective can play a part as well.

[KempBolt 498]

Like I've said before, you can't solely judge a QB off of Superbowls or post season wins. However, you can base it on how QBs perform in those big games; win or loss and factor in the rest of the teams performance as well. Observation (always), circumstance and perspective can play a part as well.

 

So would you factor in big game performance for other positions?

[Dutch 874]

Just to add on to Phins post, you also have to consider the defense faced, Brady vs Eli in both superbowls....who was under more pressure Eli or Brady? Eli beats Brady both times yet everyone here would pick Brady over Eli. There are just too many factors to account for when dismissing one QB and praising another because they face different circumstances.

 

Great point. Somewhat of another example when QBs can get too much credit or glory. Giants vs Patriots 2007 Superbowl. The highlight of the game was the David Tyree catch. Eli did a great job avoiding the sack but just threw the ball up. It was a lucky throw and catch. Eli gets Superbowl MVP and you hear "Eli beats Brady" etc etc. In all reality, Eli played an okay game. Through my eyes, I saw the game from a different perspective. I saw the best offense that went 18-0 only put up 14 points in the Superbowl. What I saw was the Giants d-line completely debilitate Tom Brady and their offense and own that game. But yet I heard nothing but Eli chants from average fans. Another example of too much credit for the signal caller.

Edited July 11, 2013 by dutchff7

[oochymp 2,393]

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.

I think we're probably on the same page, the way I see it with Peyton, he took the Colts to nine straight playoff appearances, an NFL record (Dallas also had 9 appearances between 1975 and 1983, but they had two starting QBs in that stretch, Staubach until 1980 then Danny White) the fact that only one of those teams won the Super Bowl speaks more to the front office IMO, as has been said multiple times by multiple people the Super Bowl is a team accomplishment, not an individual achievement, so if you've got a QB who's getting you to the playoffs every year (often essentially by himself) then you should be able to pull a team together around him capable of winning it all

 

also, as far as individual performances, I'm not going to put more weight on 1-4 games in January than I'm putting on 16 games between September and December

 

I'm not saying ignore the playoffs entirely, that would be silly, but they shouldn't be used to put a guy like Eli over a guy like Peyton, I generally use playoffs as a sort of tie breaker, if players are similar overall (looking at big picture, regular + post season) then I'll take the guy who's better in the post season, but when you've got a guy who's clearly superior when you look at the full body of work and one guy looks a lot better, I'm not going to put that much weight on the postseason

 

Comparing Peyton and Brees is an interesting one, and I think it'd fall into the category discussed in the prior paragraph where the two guys are really very close when you look at the overall body of work, but seeing how well Brees has done in the playoffs (which I've never really looked at closely) I'd have to take him over Manning, the number that really jumps out is four interceptions in nine playoff games, from a guy who's biggest downfall is throwing too many interceptions throwing less than one every other game is incredible

[DavethePanther 37]

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.

 

And why do you think the great QBs prior to 87 didn't have a QB rating of 80? BECAUSE!!!!!

 

Defenses had FAR... and I mean FAR less rules to deal with. Defenses were able to be more physical than the flag football rules we use today. Rule committees have continually stripped the defense of aggressiveness so more points are scored. Go back in history and find me games where 40-50 points are scored. I would venture to say those numbers has steadily climbed.

 

No doubt better offensive schemes and highly accurate passers but WR have more freedom beyond the line of scrimmage.

 

The QB ratings have no bearing on these conversation. NONE

[RazorStar 4,025]

Actually, scoring was at a peak in the late 40s, 50s and 60s, primarily due to the fact that more interceptions led to more points being scored off of turnovers and the like, however numbers have increased dramatically since about 2008 or so.

 

Top ten seasons for points per game are:

 

1. 1948 23.2 PPG

2. 1965 23.1 PPG

3. 1950 22.9 PPG

4. 2012 22.8 PPG

5. 1958 22.6 PPG

6. 1949 22.5 PPG

7t. 1962 22.3 PPG

7t. 1952 22.3 PPG

9. 2011 22.2 PPG

10. 2010, 2008, 1964, 1963, 1947, 22.0 PPG

 

The time between the merger and the Mel Blount Rule signify the lowest PPG seasons, not including the old leather helmet days in the 20s to early 40's.