An interesting take on ranking all-time QB's

[packinpatland]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/nfl/stories/021008dnspocowlishaw.3a0e2fd.html

Our guy is third behind two awesome players.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Fair list. I'd probably put Elway 4th right now. Personally, I'd put Starr ahead of Tarkenton, Staubach, and Bradshaw. Many of the other "winners" (Montana, Brady, Bradshaw) are on the list, so I'd have to put the guy who won more titles (5) than anybody else on this list in my top 10. If we were to rank Graham, he'd go in the top 5. I think he won played in 9 title games and won 7 over a 10 year stretch.

[oregonpackfan]

Fair list. I'd probably put Elway 4th right now. Personally, I'd put Starr ahead of Tarkenton, Staubach, and Bradshaw. Many of the other "winners" (Montana, Brady, Bradshaw) are on the list, so I'd have to put the guy who won more titles (5) than anybody else on this list in my top 10. If we were to rank Graham, he'd go in the top 5. I think he won played in 9 title games and won 7 over a 10 year stretch.

I grew up watching Starr and truly admired him. He did not have the physical skills of Tarkenton, Staubach, and Bradshaw. What he lacked in physical skills, he made up in intelligence and leadership.

Starr played in an era where the QB called most of the plays. IMO, Starr was the most intelligent QB I have ever seen play the game. Opposing teams feared the third and one and fourth and one situations with Starr.

About half the time he would call a long pass and complete most of them. If the team played up in anticipating the run, Starr would beat them with the pass. If they anticipated a surprise pass on short yardage and play in coverage, Starr would call for a short run to Jim Taylor. The Packers conversion rates in short yardage was uncanny.

In his quiet confident manner, Starr was one of the best QB's as a leader. Every player respected him and no one questioned his decisions.

[Merlin]

Favre may not be the #1 QB of all time but he deserves to be higher the 4th. The problem with ranking QB's is that there are always two trains of thought:

1) Individual Accomplishments
2) Team Accomplishments

I think you have to have two lists, one for the QB's that won super bowls and one for QB's that had the stats on average/good teams that may or may not have won a lot of super bowls

Brady doesn't deserve to be listed with any list of great QB's because his career is still young. Give him a few more seasons out of respect for those that have played longer than he has. Manning is in his 10th season and should be on the list but well behind Marino & Elway simply because he hasn't proven consistency in his career. His numbers go up and down based up whether or not his supporting probowl cast is there.

[oregonpackfan]

I have high respect for Joe Montana and his accomplishments. He should definitely be in the top 5, IMO.

As someone who is old enough to have seen Johnny Unitas play, he remains the #1 quarterback for me.

[The Leaper]

Starr played in an era where the QB called most of the plays. IMO, Starr was the most intelligent QB I have ever seen play the game. Opposing teams feared the third and one and fourth and one situations with Starr.

Yeah, none of that had to do with the HOF OL and RBs. :roll:

I could've been QB-ing the Packers in the mid 60s, and I'd have been feared on 3rd and 1 too.

Bottom line: Starr had more talent around him on offense than anyone in NFL history...so his success is not surprising. A lot of QBs could have been feared if they were on a team as talented at the 60s Packers. Starr's record of consistent success still is something to marvel at though...because plenty of other greats have failed (see Tom Brady in SB42) even when blessed with great surrounding talent.

Bart Starr is quick to point out that Favre is by far the better QB of the two...and he should know a hell of a lot more about it than just about anyone else.

[mmmdk]

I (almost) agree with the list; I think I'd put Elway # 3 though. Favre, P.Manning and Brady are a toss up. I think P.Manning has a legit chance to beat many of Favre's records.

[GBRulz]

Bart Starr is quick to point out that Favre is by far the better QB of the two...and he should know a hell of a lot more about it than just about anyone else.

Oh yeah, because Starr is going to come out and say "I'm better than Favre". :roll:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Favre may not be the #1 QB of all time but he deserves to be higher the 4th.

That article has him 3rd.

[The Leaper]

I think P.Manning has a legit chance to beat many of Favre's records.

True, but he also has played on a more talented offense for the bulk of his career...with a HOF WR (Harrison) and a consistently above average OL and running game. Manning also benefits from playing more than half of his games indoors in a pass friendly environment.

When all is said and done, I don't feel that Peyton Manning is likely to be viewed as a better QB than Favre. I think they will be viewed as equals...with Manning a superior field general and Favre the superior athlete. In many respects, it is a similar to the comparison of Marino and Elway before them.

[PackerBlues]

When looking at a QB's stats, why is it that regular season stats are always seperated from post-season stats..............until people want to start talking about the greatest of all time bullshit?


Super Bowls are won by great teams, not just the QB. Someone has to catch the damned ball. Someone has to block rushing defenders. There is a defense that takes the damned field too. It is stupid to point at a Super Bowl, and claim that as a stat towards your argument about which QB is better.


This article also points out something that many overlook when they put Brady and Manning above so many other great QB's...............The rule changes that were put in place to open up the passing game (to make the game more exciting?). Those rule changes may have benefited all QB's, but whose stats were helped the most by the changes???

here is an article that talks a little more about how modern QB's have benefited from those rule changes:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/48007/page/1


Here are a few paragraphs from the above linked article from Jan of 2005:


"Take instead the Denver Broncos' Jake Plummer, who is pretty much the definition of a journeyman NFL starting quarterback, ranking 15th this season among his peers. Yet Plummer threw for 4,089 yards, which happens to be more than John Elway ever managed in 16 Hall of Fame seasons for Denver. When Plummer tops Elway in anything other than hair length and number of obscene gestures, then something is decidedly askew."

"Passing for 300 yards in a single game used to be a career milestone. Now it's a Sunday afternoon stroll in the stadium.


Is it any damned wonder that after such short careers, Manning and Brady are already thought of as shoe-ins for the Hall of fame.






:evil:

[MJZiggy]

Not wishing anything on anyone, but Manning also has to stay awfully healthy for an awfully long time to catch up...

[oregonpackfan]

Yeah, none of that had to do with the HOF OL and RBs. :roll:

I could've been QB-ing the Packers in the mid 60s, and I'd have been feared on 3rd and 1 too.
[/quote]

Leaper,

I seriously doubt you could have successfully QB'd the Packers during the Lombardi years.

Though Favre has the stronger arm of the two, Starr still have some very good athletic skills. For one, he was a more accurate passer than Favre. Second, when forced to run when his receivers were covered, Starr was the better runner.

Starr was, and still is, a humble man. He would be the last to claim he was the better QB than Favre.

Overall, however, I do agree that Favre is the better QB than Starr. At the same time, Starr had some quarterback strengths than were superior to Favre's.

[The Leaper]

I seriously doubt you could have successfully QB'd the Packers during the Lombardi years.

I never said I could. I said I could be feared on 3rd-and 1...and I'm pretty sure I could. I'm sure I could handle a QB sneak behind Kramer or a handoff to Taylor or Hornung. Starr wasn't the reason the opponents feared the Packers in short yardage...that's my point.


Though Favre has the stronger arm of the two, Starr still have some very good athletic skills.

Favre is by far a better athlete all the way around. To claim that Starr can hold a candle to Favre as an athlete in any way is crazy IMO.


For one, he was a more accurate passer than Favre.

Starr was a career 57.4% passer. I think you'll find it difficult to claim he is more accurate than Favre. Equal, maybe...not more.


Second, when forced to run when his receivers were covered, Starr was the better runner.

Again, I disagree. Comparing both in their prime, I think they are very comparable. Sure, Favre now is a sitting duck...and I will also admit that Favre's legs disappeared sooner than Starr's did. However, both were very adept at making plays with their legs in their prime...though neither was an elite runner.

I think you discount just how great Favre's athletic ability truly is compared to most other NFL QBs. Favre is crazy talented...and that was not Starr's strength.

To me, Favre is a bona fide top 5 QB of all-time. Starr probably wouldn't make my top 20. Now, if you are talking strictly about clutch...then Starr is a bona fide top 5 of all-time. Favre probably wouldn't make my top 20.

However, Starr's clutch without a HOF cast around him was meaningless, which was evident early in his career before Lombardi showed up. Favre's talent and skill would be valuable to any team. That is the difference between the two...Starr NEEDED great players around him to be successful, Favre does not.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

While no fault of his, Starr played in an era with few minorities, which means a severely diminished talent pool.

While we pack fans love starr, some are letting their GB bias get in the way. Most would not put starr in the same league as Unitas or graham.

Starr is like Rich Gannon. A good caretaker of the offense, but no one should even think about putting him in the top 5 let alone top ten.

[woodbuck27]

I like the list and ranking. Johnny U was amazing as was Montana.

I had a beautiful gal friend ( that I'll defer to) who adored Joe Montana before she hooked onto Brett Favre. I've met few more intelligent people and I believe she'd rank Montana over Favre. She was too young to see Johnny U.

I will always wonder just how many SB's Brett Favre may have won if he was surrounded with better talent and that includes coaching. That fact of life, in my mind, keeps him fr. nabbing top spot.

Joe Montana. Four Super Bowls in four tries says a lot as to who tops a lot of NFL fans list. Then, some will then say ''well shouldn't Terry Bradshaw then be posted higher?'' Terry Bradshaw called his own game as well. He also played on a team that had very deep talent depth on both 'O' and 'D'. Few QB's could ever claim to have played on the caliber of teams that Terry Bradshaw did. Again he called his teams offensive plays and I feel a lot of lists ignore his true status.

Johnny Unitas should be ranked at the top of most fans list. He amazed me as tops before I witnessed Joe Montana (with a big assist fr. Bill Walsh and the new West Coast 'O'.)

I see lists that rank John Elway too high as I saw his performance overall. I like his placing on this list.

I'm glad to see Fran Tarkenton making Tim Cowlishaw's list as well. Fran Tarkenton always makes my top ten. He was a very exciting QB for me to watch.

PACKERS FOREVER!

[woodbuck27]

While no fault of his, Starr played in an era with few minorities, which means a severely diminished talent pool.

While we pack fans love starr, some are letting their GB bias get in the way. Most would not put starr in the same league as Unitas or graham.

Starr is like Rich Gannon. A good caretaker of the offense, but no one should even think about putting him in the top 5 let alone top ten.

Bart Starr was a real winner though. Tough to beat in that department. He could win the BIG game.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

While no fault of his, Starr played in an era with few minorities, which means a severely diminished talent pool.

While we pack fans love starr, some are letting their GB bias get in the way. Most would not put starr in the same league as Unitas or graham.

Starr is like Rich Gannon. A good caretaker of the offense, but no one should even think about putting him in the top 5 let alone top ten.

Bart Starr was a real winner though. Tough to beat in that department. He could win the BIG game.

Sure. And, with that supporting cast Trent Dilfer woulda won as well.

[The Shadow]

Fair list. I'd probably put Elway 4th right now. Personally, I'd put Starr ahead of Tarkenton, Staubach, and Bradshaw. Many of the other "winners" (Montana, Brady, Bradshaw) are on the list, so I'd have to put the guy who won more titles (5) than anybody else on this list in my top 10. If we were to rank Graham, he'd go in the top 5. I think he won played in 9 title games and won 7 over a 10 year stretch.

I grew up watching Starr and truly admired him. He did not have the physical skills of Tarkenton, Staubach, and Bradshaw. What he lacked in physical skills, he made up in intelligence and leadership.

Starr played in an era where the QB called most of the plays. IMO, Starr was the most intelligent QB I have ever seen play the game. Opposing teams feared the third and one and fourth and one situations with Starr.

About half the time he would call a long pass and complete most of them. If the team played up in anticipating the run, Starr would beat them with the pass. If they anticipated a surprise pass on short yardage and play in coverage, Starr would call for a short run to Jim Taylor. The Packers conversion rates in short yardage was uncanny.

In his quiet confident manner, Starr was one of the best QB's as a leader. Every player respected him and no one questioned his decisions.


Agree completely.

[The Shadow]

Bart Starr is quick to point out that Favre is by far the better QB of the two...and he should know a hell of a lot more about it than just about anyone else.

Oh yeah, because Starr is going to come out and say "I'm better than Favre". :roll:

GBRulz : You are right on the money!

[The Shadow]

While no fault of his, Starr played in an era with few minorities, which means a severely diminished talent pool.

While we pack fans love starr, some are letting their GB bias get in the way. Most would not put starr in the same league as Unitas or graham.

Starr is like Rich Gannon. A good caretaker of the offense, but no one should even think about putting him in the top 5 let alone top ten.
.................................................. .................................................. .....

I certainly understand the desire of younger Packer fans to want to have seen 'the best' - and so anoint Brett as alltime greatest Packer quarterback.
But, as a fan old enough to have had the privilege of following the careers of both Starr and Favre, I must reiterate my contention (and I know many here are sick of hearing it by now!) that although Brett Favre has far superior physical gifts, Starr was the overall superior quarterback.
At the most basic level : of what use is a rocket arm and all the talent in the world if your field generalship and judgment do not translate into wins?
Starr, with far more modest physical talent, simply won. What particularly stands out was his performance in the Ice Bowl, where he found a way to win even in the teeth of impossible conditions and situation.
The image of that final drive came to mind most recently when I watched the contrasting failure of this year's team in the Giants game.
Again, I understand completely that fans who 'grew up' with Favre want to regard him as 'best ever', but.....
Sorry, not being able to jump aboard bandwagons is yet another curse of having been around a long time.

[b bulldog]

Wow, one list where favre is ahead of Brady and it is called a "fair list" :lol:

[b bulldog]

I like this poll, from a bunch of NFL TALENT EVALUATORS.
1. Unitas
2. Montana
3. Brady
4. Marino
5. Manning
6. Elway
7. Bradshaw
8. Favre
9. Graham
10. Fouts


As always, this discussion is pure opinion but I like taking peoples opinions that are in the know on what they are polling.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

While no fault of his, Starr played in an era with few minorities, which means a severely diminished talent pool.

While we pack fans love starr, some are letting their GB bias get in the way. Most would not put starr in the same league as Unitas or graham.

Starr is like Rich Gannon. A good caretaker of the offense, but no one should even think about putting him in the top 5 let alone top ten.
.................................................. .................................................. .....

I certainly understand the desire of younger Packer fans to want to have seen 'the best' - and so anoint Brett as alltime greatest Packer quarterback.
But, as a fan old enough to have had the privilege of following the careers of both Starr and Favre, I must reiterate my contention (and I know many here are sick of hearing it by now!) that although Brett Favre has far superior physical gifts, Starr was the overall superior quarterback.
At the most basic level : of what use is a rocket arm and all the talent in the world if your field generalship and judgment do not translate into wins?
Starr, with far more modest physical talent, simply won. What particularly stands out was his performance in the Ice Bowl, where he found a way to win even in the teeth of impossible conditions and situation.
The image of that final drive came to mind most recently when I watched the contrasting failure of this year's team in the Giants game.
Again, I understand completely that fans who 'grew up' with Favre want to regard him as 'best ever', but.....
Sorry, not being able to jump aboard bandwagons is yet another curse of having been around a long time.

You are making an argument that i didn't. Take favre outta the equation..which i clearly did. And, there is no desire for me to say that i saw the best...i'll take the words of professionals whose judgement i'll take over yours or others. Ron Wolf didn't rate Starr that high. Cowlishaw (granted writer) didn't have him in the top ten.

You are letting the past cloud your judgement.

Starr never had to carry at team. He never completed 200 passes in a season. He was a 4 time pro bowler in 15 YEARS.

Let's compare him to...and Bullldog will hate me for this..to another what i call system QB...Brady. Brady as a starter has more years in his short career of over 60% completion to Starr's 4..and one of those years he completed 92 passes or so.

The pack regularly ran the ball almost TWICE as much as they passed.

Don't worry about Favre making mistakes..he wouldn't have with those teams. When you are only passing 250 or so times. Look at his stats in 61 when he had to pass nearly 300 times...16 ints.

And, despite favre's mistakes, his Int % is lower than Starr's. What does that tell you?

[The Shadow]

While no fault of his, Starr played in an era with few minorities, which means a severely diminished talent pool.

While we pack fans love starr, some are letting their GB bias get in the way. Most would not put starr in the same league as Unitas or graham.

Starr is like Rich Gannon. A good caretaker of the offense, but no one should even think about putting him in the top 5 let alone top ten.
.................................................. .................................................. .....

I certainly understand the desire of younger Packer fans to want to have seen 'the best' - and so anoint Brett as alltime greatest Packer quarterback.
But, as a fan old enough to have had the privilege of following the careers of both Starr and Favre, I must reiterate my contention (and I know many here are sick of hearing it by now!) that although Brett Favre has far superior physical gifts, Starr was the overall superior quarterback.
At the most basic level : of what use is a rocket arm and all the talent in the world if your field generalship and judgment do not translate into wins?
Starr, with far more modest physical talent, simply won. What particularly stands out was his performance in the Ice Bowl, where he found a way to win even in the teeth of impossible conditions and situation.
The image of that final drive came to mind most recently when I watched the contrasting failure of this year's team in the Giants game.
Again, I understand completely that fans who 'grew up' with Favre want to regard him as 'best ever', but.....
Sorry, not being able to jump aboard bandwagons is yet another curse of having been around a long time.

You are making an argument that i didn't. Take favre outta the equation..which i clearly did. And, there is no desire for me to say that i saw the best...i'll take the words of professionals whose judgement i'll take over yours or others. Ron Wolf didn't rate Starr that high. Cowlishaw (granted writer) didn't have him in the top ten.

You are letting the past cloud your judgement.

Starr never had to carry at team. He never completed 200 passes in a season. He was a 4 time pro bowler in 15 YEARS.

Let's compare him to...and Bullldog will hate me for this..to another what i call system QB...Brady. Brady as a starter has more years in his short career of over 60% completion to Starr's 4..and one of those years he completed 92 passes or so.

The pack regularly ran the ball almost TWICE as much as they passed.

Don't worry about Favre making mistakes..he wouldn't have with those teams. When you are only passing 250 or so times. Look at his stats in 61 when he had to pass nearly 300 times...16 ints.

And, despite favre's mistakes, his Int % is lower than Starr's. What does that tell you?

.................................................. ..........................................

Sorry, Ty, but I watched them both; I am not relying on eras, stats, other opinions, etc. I watched them both (and a major part of Wolf's legacy DEPENDS on Favre, remember!).
Favre can throw it farther on his knees than Starr could upright. That's great.
But Starr in the snow and sub-zero temps against a formidable Dallas team in the waning minutes with a championship on the line?
Sometimes, my friend, stats don't tell the whole story.

[StPaulPackFan]

It would be interesting to see how these "people in the know" ranked Favre back in 1998. After winning 3 straight MVPs, making 2 SB appearances and winning 1 SB many were saying he was on his way to being the greatest of all time. Some even said he was already there. Unfortunately for Brett his dismal 2005 & 2006 seasons are fresh memories whereas his dominance of the mid 90's is a distant memory for most of today's "people in the know".

It will also be interesting to see how Manning and Brady are remembered 10 years from now if neither wins another SB or posts another another monster season along the way. Both are great QB's but the 49 and 50 TD seasons are anomolies compared to the rest of their careers. Regardless, I would wager that whoever the "hot" QB's are in 10 years will be pushing both down the list, waranted or not.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I like this poll, from a bunch of NFL TALENT EVALUATORS.
1. Unitas
2. Montana
3. Brady
4. Marino
5. Manning
6. Elway
7. Bradshaw
8. Favre
9. Graham
10. Fouts


As always, this discussion is pure opinion but I like taking peoples opinions that are in the know on what they are polling.

Might help to show the source. But, you wouldn't do that since it would CLEARLY show that it wasn't JUST talent evaluators.

"Marv Levy, Art Rooney Jr., Zeke Bratkowski, Ken Meyer, Larry Kennan, James Harris and Dick Haley helped ESPN.com evaluate the best quarterbacks in NFL history. ESPN.com weighed their contributions, balancing rankings with anecdotal evidence, to create the following list.

I'll take this list which has favre ahead of brady..yet again.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=139

[Tyrone Bigguns]

While no fault of his, Starr played in an era with few minorities, which means a severely diminished talent pool.

While we pack fans love starr, some are letting their GB bias get in the way. Most would not put starr in the same league as Unitas or graham.

Starr is like Rich Gannon. A good caretaker of the offense, but no one should even think about putting him in the top 5 let alone top ten.
.................................................. .................................................. .....

I certainly understand the desire of younger Packer fans to want to have seen 'the best' - and so anoint Brett as alltime greatest Packer quarterback.
But, as a fan old enough to have had the privilege of following the careers of both Starr and Favre, I must reiterate my contention (and I know many here are sick of hearing it by now!) that although Brett Favre has far superior physical gifts, Starr was the overall superior quarterback.
At the most basic level : of what use is a rocket arm and all the talent in the world if your field generalship and judgment do not translate into wins?
Starr, with far more modest physical talent, simply won. What particularly stands out was his performance in the Ice Bowl, where he found a way to win even in the teeth of impossible conditions and situation.
The image of that final drive came to mind most recently when I watched the contrasting failure of this year's team in the Giants game.
Again, I understand completely that fans who 'grew up' with Favre want to regard him as 'best ever', but.....
Sorry, not being able to jump aboard bandwagons is yet another curse of having been around a long time.

You are making an argument that i didn't. Take favre outta the equation..which i clearly did. And, there is no desire for me to say that i saw the best...i'll take the words of professionals whose judgement i'll take over yours or others. Ron Wolf didn't rate Starr that high. Cowlishaw (granted writer) didn't have him in the top ten.

You are letting the past cloud your judgement.

Starr never had to carry at team. He never completed 200 passes in a season. He was a 4 time pro bowler in 15 YEARS.

Let's compare him to...and Bullldog will hate me for this..to another what i call system QB...Brady. Brady as a starter has more years in his short career of over 60% completion to Starr's 4..and one of those years he completed 92 passes or so.

The pack regularly ran the ball almost TWICE as much as they passed.

Don't worry about Favre making mistakes..he wouldn't have with those teams. When you are only passing 250 or so times. Look at his stats in 61 when he had to pass nearly 300 times...16 ints.

And, despite favre's mistakes, his Int % is lower than Starr's. What does that tell you?

.................................................. ..........................................

Sorry, Ty, but I watched them both; I am not relying on eras, stats, other opinions, etc. I watched them both (and a major part of Wolf's legacy DEPENDS on Favre, remember!).
Favre can throw it farther on his knees than Starr could upright. That's great.
But Starr in the snow and sub-zero temps against a formidable Dallas team in the waning minutes with a championship on the line?
Sometimes, my friend, stats don't tell the whole story.

Neither do your eyes tell the whole story either.

I can just as easily say that you prefer to think things were better in the past.

Kind of easy to view Starr as great when you have HOW MANY HOFs on the team. How many HOFs will Favre have played with? Keith Jackson on offense..maybe Rison someday. Not one single HOF on the line..where the game is won. How many for the pack of starr? 'nuff said.

You can view things they way you want, but you are pretty much alone. Find us a list that puts Starr in the top ten and we will find 10 for every one of yours.

[The Shadow]

"You are letting the past cloud your judgement."


Sometimes an opinion going against the current grain is relegated to that particular old chestnut, I understand.
There are MANY things that cloud my judgment - but this is not one of them.
I watched both. I make my historical football evaluations based solely on what I directly observed. For example, I don't claim that every old player was 'better' than modern players - not at all. I also don't imagine that Lombardi's power sweep, with 240 lb guards leading the way, would be anything more today than probably a 3 yard loss.
But : football field general skills - the ability to find a way to move your team successfully in crunch time against all odds - do not disappear with new eras.
The ability to win - a bit different from mere 'ultra-competitive spirit -
does not change over time.

[Freak Out]

I think one of the guys that is rarely mentioned is one of the best ever: Kenny Anderson from little Augustana college! I won't bother with any stats but I just remember him as one of the best I have ever seen on the field....right up there with Montana, Fouts, Favre, Marino and so on. I think he won an MVP and probably should have won another......as well as a SB.

Damn I wanted the Bengals to win that game. :(

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"You are letting the past cloud your judgement."


Sometimes an opinion going against the current grain is relegated to that particular old chestnut, I understand.
There are MANY things that cloud my judgment - but this is not one of them.
I watched both. I make my historical football evaluations based solely on what I directly observed. For example, I don't claim that every old player was 'better' than modern players - not at all. I also don't imagine that Lombardi's power sweep, with 240 lb guards leading the way, would be anything more today than probably a 3 yard loss.
But : football field general skills - the ability to find a way to move your team successfully in crunch time against all odds - do not disappear with new eras.
The ability to win - a bit different from mere 'ultra-competitive spirit -
does not change over time.

I would disagree on finding a way to move your team. If you are slow and playing against other slow players you can find a way to win.

Additionally, his "will to win" or playmaking was half time. He was counted on to make plays more than .5 of what Favre is doing..or most modern QBs. When you are chucking the ball twice as much you are going to have twice as many errors..and plays that people remember as terrible.

Again, you can't discount the fact that the game is won on the line..and favre has had NO HOFs playing with him...and no HOF skill positions. And, 4 coaches..with many schemes.

Lastly, you watched...in person..which is again highly subjective and not the best way to evaluate a play or players. Football is a game for TV.

Or did you watch on a crappy small screen tv..that barely had instant replay. Barely had coverage of all the angles, etc.

The fact remains..that plenty have seen both QBs and the rest...(yet you are hung up on Favre) and you'd be hard pressed to find one that puts Starr in the top 10.

Feel free to believe what you want, but anecdotal evidence is the poorest form. The eyes deceive us (not just in football, but in life..we see how unrealiable eye witness testimony is in court). We see what we want. We frame things to fit our paradigm.

I'm not here to convince you of anything, but you'll never convince me nor 99% of America. I'm sure there are a few commies in russia you can work on. :twisted:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think one of the guys that is rarely mentioned is one of the best ever: Kenny Anderson from little Augustana college! I won't bother with any stats but I just remember him as one of the best I have ever seen on the field....right up there with Montana, Fouts, Favre, Marino and so on. I think he won an MVP and probably should have won another......as well as a SB.

Damn I wanted the Bengals to win that game. :(

Your view is clouded by a good 5 year run..and that was late in his career. And, two of those years he started 9 games. That run was over and 2 years later so was Kenny.

The best year he had was when he only played 9 games. Though 1981 was a special year for him.

You are selling us on a guy whose lifetime completion percentage is below Favre's.

He was a good to very good QB..but, would have a hard time cracking the top 30.

I could make as compelling a case for Hadl, the snake, Jimmy Hart, Danny White, Archie Manning, etc.

[The Shadow]

"You are letting the past cloud your judgement."


Sometimes an opinion going against the current grain is relegated to that particular old chestnut, I understand.
There are MANY things that cloud my judgment - but this is not one of them.
I watched both. I make my historical football evaluations based solely on what I directly observed. For example, I don't claim that every old player was 'better' than modern players - not at all. I also don't imagine that Lombardi's power sweep, with 240 lb guards leading the way, would be anything more today than probably a 3 yard loss.
But : football field general skills - the ability to find a way to move your team successfully in crunch time against all odds - do not disappear with new eras.
The ability to win - a bit different from mere 'ultra-competitive spirit -
does not change over time.

I would disagree on finding a way to move your team. If you are slow and playing against other slow players you can find a way to win.

Additionally, his "will to win" or playmaking was half time. He was counted on to make plays more than .5 of what Favre is doing..or most modern QBs. When you are chucking the ball twice as much you are going to have twice as many errors..and plays that people remember as terrible.

Again, you can't discount the fact that the game is won on the line..and favre has had NO HOFs playing with him...and no HOF skill positions. And, 4 coaches..with many schemes.

Lastly, you watched...in person..which is again highly subjective and not the best way to evaluate a play or players. Football is a game for TV.

Or did you watch on a crappy small screen tv..that barely had instant replay. Barely had coverage of all the angles, etc.

The fact remains..that plenty have seen both QBs and the rest...(yet you are hung up on Favre) and you'd be hard pressed to find one that puts Starr in the top 10.

Feel free to believe what you want, but anecdotal evidence is the poorest form. The eyes deceive us (not just in football, but in life..we see how unrealiable eye witness testimony is in court). We see what we want. We frame things to fit our paradigm.

I'm not here to convince you of anything, but you'll never convince me nor 99% of America. I'm sure there are a few commies in russia you can work on. :twisted:

.................................................. ....................................
Ty, Ty, Ty, Ty :
I'll try one more time before "working on a few commies in Russia?????".
As a lifelong Packer fan, I invested tons of emotional chips on both Bart Starr and Brettt Favre.
Starr produced - 61,62,65,66,76.
Favre, with one exception did not - and broke my heart on a consistent basis.
Physical ability? Wonderful!
Production? Priceless!!
Now : back to the U.S.S.R.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Been away so long I hardly knew the place,
gee, it's good to get back home!

[Freak Out]

I think one of the guys that is rarely mentioned is one of the best ever: Kenny Anderson from little Augustana college! I won't bother with any stats but I just remember him as one of the best I have ever seen on the field....right up there with Montana, Fouts, Favre, Marino and so on. I think he won an MVP and probably should have won another......as well as a SB.

Damn I wanted the Bengals to win that game. :(

Your view is clouded by a good 5 year run..and that was late in his career. And, two of those years he started 9 games. That run was over and 2 years later so was Kenny.


Absolutely it is...I loved to watch him play and dreamed of a Packer - Bengal SB. Of course he'll never top any of the "Greatest QBs of all time list" but he was better than most IMO. Did you get the chance to watch him play?

[Merlin]

When looking at a QB's stats, why is it that regular season stats are always seperated from post-season stats..............until people want to start talking about the greatest of all time bullshit?


Super Bowls are won by great teams, not just the QB. Someone has to catch the damned ball. Someone has to block rushing defenders. There is a defense that takes the damned field too. It is stupid to point at a Super Bowl, and claim that as a stat towards your argument about which QB is better.


This article also points out something that many overlook when they put Brady and Manning above so many other great QB's...............The rule changes that were put in place to open up the passing game (to make the game more exciting?). Those rule changes may have benefited all QB's, but whose stats were helped the most by the changes???

here is an article that talks a little more about how modern QB's have benefited from those rule changes:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/48007/page/1


Here are a few paragraphs from the above linked article from Jan of 2005:


"Take instead the Denver Broncos' Jake Plummer, who is pretty much the definition of a journeyman NFL starting quarterback, ranking 15th this season among his peers. Yet Plummer threw for 4,089 yards, which happens to be more than John Elway ever managed in 16 Hall of Fame seasons for Denver. When Plummer tops Elway in anything other than hair length and number of obscene gestures, then something is decidedly askew."

"Passing for 300 yards in a single game used to be a career milestone. Now it's a Sunday afternoon stroll in the stadium.


Is it any damned wonder that after such short careers, Manning and Brady are already thought of as shoe-ins for the Hall of fame.

:evil:

You mean the Giants didn't win the Super Bowl (or get there) because their QB carried them? I am shocked and appalled that the media would ever spin something like that.

Favre had a better outing in the Super Bowl than Eli Manning OR Peyton Manning but they both have Super Bowl MVP's and it's the media who determines this award. Over the past 5-10 years these awards become meaningless because the media is so jacked up about a player and not the actual game and who really affected it's outcome. Desmond Howard had one hell of a game in the Super Bowl, so did Favre. But Desmond probably did more to turn the tide of the game then Favre. As did the Colts running game in 41 and the Giants defense and WR play in 42. But the QB's got the award none-the-less. Vinatari booted 2 game winning field goals in the Super Bowl. How much pressure is that for a kicker? Of course the QB deserves all of the allocades today, accept Favre.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"You are letting the past cloud your judgement."


Sometimes an opinion going against the current grain is relegated to that particular old chestnut, I understand.
There are MANY things that cloud my judgment - but this is not one of them.
I watched both. I make my historical football evaluations based solely on what I directly observed. For example, I don't claim that every old player was 'better' than modern players - not at all. I also don't imagine that Lombardi's power sweep, with 240 lb guards leading the way, would be anything more today than probably a 3 yard loss.
But : football field general skills - the ability to find a way to move your team successfully in crunch time against all odds - do not disappear with new eras.
The ability to win - a bit different from mere 'ultra-competitive spirit -
does not change over time.

I would disagree on finding a way to move your team. If you are slow and playing against other slow players you can find a way to win.

Additionally, his "will to win" or playmaking was half time. He was counted on to make plays more than .5 of what Favre is doing..or most modern QBs. When you are chucking the ball twice as much you are going to have twice as many errors..and plays that people remember as terrible.

Again, you can't discount the fact that the game is won on the line..and favre has had NO HOFs playing with him...and no HOF skill positions. And, 4 coaches..with many schemes.

Lastly, you watched...in person..which is again highly subjective and not the best way to evaluate a play or players. Football is a game for TV.

Or did you watch on a crappy small screen tv..that barely had instant replay. Barely had coverage of all the angles, etc.

The fact remains..that plenty have seen both QBs and the rest...(yet you are hung up on Favre) and you'd be hard pressed to find one that puts Starr in the top 10.

Feel free to believe what you want, but anecdotal evidence is the poorest form. The eyes deceive us (not just in football, but in life..we see how unrealiable eye witness testimony is in court). We see what we want. We frame things to fit our paradigm.

I'm not here to convince you of anything, but you'll never convince me nor 99% of America. I'm sure there are a few commies in russia you can work on. :twisted:

.................................................. ....................................
Ty, Ty, Ty, Ty :
I'll try one more time before "working on a few commies in Russia?????".
As a lifelong Packer fan, I invested tons of emotional chips on both Bart Starr and Brettt Favre.
Starr produced - 61,62,65,66,76.
Favre, with one exception did not - and broke my heart on a consistent basis.
Physical ability? Wonderful!
Production? Priceless!!
Now : back to the U.S.S.R.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Been away so long I hardly knew the place,
gee, it's good to get back home!

Produced with HOFs. Including a HOF coach.

Can we same the same for Favre?

[The Leaper]

7. Bradshaw
8. Favre


Terry Bradshaw couldn't hold Favre's jockstrap.

A. Favre is far more accurate than Bradshaw ever was. It isn't even close. Bradshaw's career completion percentage is a staggering 51.9%.

B. Bradshaw only threw more TDs than INTs eight times in his career...and 4 of those seasons the differential was 2 or less.

C. Bradshaw was NEVER an NFL MVP...and was only an All-Pro selection 3 times in his entire career.

In 19 playoff games, Bradshaw's defense only surrendered more than 20 points six times. The Steelers lost 5 of those 6 games...the only one where they pulled it out was Bradshaw's fabulous performance against Dallas in a 35-31 SB win.

Bradshaw was not able to carry that team when he had to on a consistent basis. The Steelers of the 1970s were all about defense...not Bradshaw. Bradshaw does deserve credit for leading that team in 1978 and 1979, where he was forced to take on more of the offensive load...and did so successfully. However, prior to those seasons, Bradshaw was more or less the same as Trent Dilfer for the Ravens.

[Patler]

7. Bradshaw
8. Favre


Terry Bradshaw couldn't hold Favre's jockstrap.

A. Favre is far more accurate than Bradshaw ever was. It isn't even close. Bradshaw's career completion percentage is a staggering 51.9%.

B. Bradshaw only threw more TDs than INTs eight times in his career...and 4 of those seasons the differential was 2 or less.

C. Bradshaw was NEVER an NFL MVP...and was only an All-Pro selection 3 times in his entire career.

In 19 playoff games, Bradshaw's defense only surrendered more than 20 points six times. The Steelers lost 5 of those 6 games...the only one where they pulled it out was Bradshaw's fabulous performance against Dallas in a 35-31 SB win.

Bradshaw was not able to carry that team when he had to on a consistent basis. The Steelers of the 1970s were all about defense...not Bradshaw. Bradshaw does deserve credit for leading that team in 1978 and 1979, where he was forced to take on more of the offensive load...and did so successfully. However, prior to those seasons, Bradshaw was more or less the same as Trent Dilfer for the Ravens.

I think of Bradshaw as a decent QB, but I have a hard time thinking of him as one of the best ever, worthy of the HOF. His CAREER QB rating is 70.9 He exceeded an 80 rating only 3 times. For much of his career, there was an underlying feeling that the Steelers would be even better with a different QB.

I can't help but wonder if he would have even been a consideration for the HOF if he had played for a different team, like Archie Manning. Personally, I think Manning was a better QB.

[KYPack]

I think one of the guys that is rarely mentioned is one of the best ever: Kenny Anderson from little Augustana college! I won't bother with any stats but I just remember him as one of the best I have ever seen on the field....right up there with Montana, Fouts, Favre, Marino and so on. I think he won an MVP and probably should have won another......as well as a SB.

Damn I wanted the Bengals to win that game. :(

Your view is clouded by a good 5 year run..and that was late in his career. And, two of those years he started 9 games. That run was over and 2 years later so was Kenny.

The best year he had was when he only played 9 games. Though 1981 was a special year for him.

You are selling us on a guy whose lifetime completion percentage is below Favre's.

He was a good to very good QB..but, would have a hard time cracking the top 30.

I could make as compelling a case for Hadl, the snake, Jimmy Hart, Danny White, Archie Manning, etc.


BZZZZT

Tyrone, Anderson played 16 seasons and was a starter for 14 of 'em. He lead the league in QB rating four times and also was lead the league in 8 other major categories. '74 was a great year for Ken, nearly as good as '81. That's a 7 season span right there.

Anderson's numbers are very comparable to Dan Fouts. Bill Walsh rates Kenny on a par with Joe Montana as far as running Bill's West Coast scheme.

"And, two of those years he started 9 games. That run was over and 2 years later so was Kenny."

Anderson only started 9 games once in his career.

He has a long, illustrious career and was very durable.

[Patler]

I think Kenny Anderson's reputation suffers from not having a memorable enough name!
One of the best of his time, and nobody remembers him.

[The Leaper]

I can't help but wonder if he would have even been a consideration for the HOF if he had played for a different team, like Archie Manning. Personally, I think Manning was a better QB.

I agree.

But to Terry's credit...he has a blocked punt in his NFL career. How many QBs can claim a punt block? That's an interesting tidbit that could win you a beer sometime.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think one of the guys that is rarely mentioned is one of the best ever: Kenny Anderson from little Augustana college! I won't bother with any stats but I just remember him as one of the best I have ever seen on the field....right up there with Montana, Fouts, Favre, Marino and so on. I think he won an MVP and probably should have won another......as well as a SB.

Damn I wanted the Bengals to win that game. :(

Your view is clouded by a good 5 year run..and that was late in his career. And, two of those years he started 9 games. That run was over and 2 years later so was Kenny.

The best year he had was when he only played 9 games. Though 1981 was a special year for him.

You are selling us on a guy whose lifetime completion percentage is below Favre's.

He was a good to very good QB..but, would have a hard time cracking the top 30.

I could make as compelling a case for Hadl, the snake, Jimmy Hart, Danny White, Archie Manning, etc.


BZZZZT

Tyrone, Anderson played 16 seasons and was a starter for 14 of 'em. He lead the league in QB rating four times and also was lead the league in 8 other major categories. '74 was a great year for Ken, nearly as good as '81. That's a 7 season span right there.

Anderson's numbers are very comparable to Dan Fouts. Bill Walsh rates Kenny on a par with Joe Montana as far as running Bill's West Coast scheme.

"And, two of those years he started 9 games. That run was over and 2 years later so was Kenny."

Anderson only started 9 games once in his career.

He has a long, illustrious career and was very durable.

I think you are getting the wrong impression. I know all about Anderson. He was a very solid QB. He experienced good success early..had a drought, then had a very good 5 year run towards the end of his career.

My point wasn't that he ONLY had 5 years..but, that freakout had a distorted view. If he had watched the 3 years prior he woulda had a distorted view of his performance as well.

I think he was all pro/pro bowl 4 times. That is good, but c'mon..outta 16?

As for Bill Walsh..i'm sure he is right..but, running the system and being a great QB are two different things. I'm sure Bill woulda said Garcia ran the system almost as good as Montana...but, you and i both know he isn't in the same class.

The 9 games was his best statistical year..completion percentage wise, etc. And, if you look at the 5 year run..he didn't start every game..he was an old, battered QB. Still dangerous, but you can't even compare him to a Favre/marino/elway.

But, by no means is he a top 10 or even 20 QB..arguments could be made for the other QBs i listed as well.

You wanna be listed in the top 20...don't you think you should be a HOF?

[Patler]

But to Terry's credit...he has a blocked punt in his NFL career. How many QBs can claim a punt block? That's an interesting tidbit that could win you a beer sometime.

You got me on that one Leaper! How did that occur?

[PackerBlues]

Ranking QB's from different era's is about as stupid as comparing a sports car of today to a sports car of the 70's. To much has changed over time to allow for a legitimate comparison.........to the extent, that all any of you are doing is throwing around your own opinions, and looking for cheesy little facts to back your opinion up.

Go ahead and start up a list of the 10 greatest muscle cars of all time........everyones list is going to be different for different reasons. Although, we all know that the '69 Olds 442 was the greatest of all time, someone else may tell you that the '72 Cutlass Supreme was better, because it had a more aerodynamic body style and it was lighter...........it is all opinion.

Again, quoting this article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/48007/page/1

"When the NFL competition committee--with Colts team president Bill Polian a prominent member--chose to neuter defensive backs by changing the rules on pass defense, or at least the enforcement of those rules, the numbers of NFL quarterbacks across the board soared. It's hardly a coincidence that Manning was only one of about 10 NFL starting QBs--including Daunte Culpepper, Donovan McNabb and Tom Brady--who posted career bests in TD passes."

So, in my opinion, for anyone to rank a putz like Brady ahead of Marino, Elway, and Favre.........its just a wee bit ignorant. What?, do you think for one second, that the rule changes mentioned above would not have benefited Marino or Elway? While Favre has been in the league all through this particular rule change, the majority of his career was spent playing the game the same way that Marino and Elway had to play it..........with their WR's getting mugged by the CB's.


Simply put, Manning and Brady's overall career stats have benefited greatly from this one single rule change. Corners are no longer allowed as much contact, therefore, more passes are being completed, and more TD's thrown. Does anyone want to argue that had this rule been applied during Marino's rookie season, his stats would not have been significantly better than what they are???????????


Again, anyone wanting to make a top ten list, could make up their own rules as to what would apply towards making their own opinion "stick". What if you only judged QB's on the first 5 years of their career? What if your list only used stats from the regular season? ........ It is as pathetic as throwing out your opinion as to who was better, Ali, or Tyson. The number of variables make it impossible to say for sure. So, for anyone to claim that one was better than the other, they would be doing nothing more than spouting their opinion and tossing out speculation.

[The Leaper]

You got me on that one Leaper! How did that occur?

Actually, my bad...it was his own punt that was blocked. I was mistaken by the listing in the database.

In his rookie year, he was a substitute punter when the regular punter pulled a muscle in the final game of the year. Bradshaw had his punt blocked and it was recovered by the other team in the endzone for a TD.

I wonder how many Super Bowl era QBs have attempted a punt? The fact Bradshaw was a #1 overall draft pick makes it even more strange. They clearly had no faith in the guy during his rookie year.

[KYPack]

You got me on that one Leaper! How did that occur?

Actually, my bad...it was his own punt that was blocked. I was mistaken by the listing in the database.

In his rookie year, he was a substitute punter when the regular punter pulled a muscle in the final game of the year. Bradshaw had his punt blocked and it was recovered by the other team in the endzone for a TD.

I wonder how many Super Bowl era QBs have attempted a punt? The fact Bradshaw was a #1 overall draft pick makes it even more strange. They clearly had no faith in the guy during his rookie year.

They were trying to find something for him to do. He sure as hell wasn't ready to play quarterback in the NFL. His rookie year? 6 TD's and 24 picks. He was awful his first 5 seasons and was benched in '74.

In '75, the bulb lit in his head and he began leading the team to SB's.

[Patler]

You got me on that one Leaper! How did that occur?

Actually, my bad...it was his own punt that was blocked. I was mistaken by the listing in the database.

In his rookie year, he was a substitute punter when the regular punter pulled a muscle in the final game of the year. Bradshaw had his punt blocked and it was recovered by the other team in the endzone for a TD.

I wonder how many Super Bowl era QBs have attempted a punt? The fact Bradshaw was a #1 overall draft pick makes it even more strange. They clearly had no faith in the guy during his rookie year.

I remember discussions of him being a punter. I did not remember him punting in the NFL.

The Steelers always seemed kind of wishy-washy in committing to Bradshaw. First there was a feeling that maybe Hanratty was better, then Joe Gilliam, then Mike Kruczek. They didn't fall in love with him for a long time, and the fans did more so after he retired than while he played.

[b bulldog]

Tyrone, your list was over two years old and the term "talent evaluators" was ESPN's term, not mine. One more thing, John Madden and Jimmy Johnson also see it my way :oops: I guess they know nothing either.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, your list was over two years old and the term "talent evaluators" was ESPN's term, not mine. One more thing, John Madden and Jimmy Johnson also see it my way :oops: I guess they know nothing either.

My list...it was the exact same list that you used. WTF are you talking about?

You bring a source..which you dont' cite..and you say it is by talent evaluators..which it wasn't. It was a list using some of their input.

You don't get a pass for using talent evaluators and then claiming it was theirs..they also used the term "anecdotal evidence" but you curioiusly left that out. that is called a LIE OF OMISSION.

Madden..if you wanna use him....most people don't take what he says seriously anymore. JJ..fine. I can find others that disagree.

[b bulldog]

I never used the pro football reference site that you pasted, that list is from 2006.

[b bulldog]

ESPN weighed their contributuions, balancing rankings with anecdotal evidence in an effort to create the best possible rankings.
"While 7 seasoned evaluators placed Brady solidly in the top 10, Unitas consistently ranked higher than any other QB. Montana was second followed by Brady, Marino , Manning, Elway, Bradshaw, Favre, Graham and Fouts.
The 7 evaluators are Marv levy, Zeke Bratkowski, Ken Meyer, Dick haley, Larry kennan, and James Harris. ESPN and these 7 talent evaluators made the list.

[b bulldog]

Cold hard football facts .com
1. Starr
2. Montana
3. Baugh
4. Graham
5. Brady

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I never used the pro football reference site that you pasted, that list is from 2006.

I'm talking about the list you put out from espn that you said was talent evaluators.

It really doesn't matter as Favre did everything w/o cheating. Can you say the same for Brady?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

ESPN weighed their contributuions, balancing rankings with anecdotal evidence in an effort to create the best possible rankings.
"While 7 seasoned evaluators placed Brady solidly in the top 10, Unitas consistently ranked higher than any other QB. Montana was second followed by Brady, Marino , Manning, Elway, Bradshaw, Favre, Graham and Fouts.
The 7 evaluators are Marv levy, Zeke Bratkowski, Ken Meyer, Dick haley, Larry kennan, and James Harris. ESPN and these 7 talent evaluators made the list.

Right. And, so it isn't just talent evaluators. It was weighted. We don't know how they weighted it. What sort of anecdotal, etc.

Like i said, Favre=no cheating, Pats=cheaters.

If brady loses one of his other wins...one where he actually really was good...how does that change everyone's perception.

Rightly or wrongly...brady is part of a cheating team.

[Noodle]

I love this kind of stuff.

But TB, please, more love for Starr. Here are some things you're not thinking about.

As others have said, the game has changed big time since Starr played, both in rules and in strategy. In 1978, the NFL Rules Committee allowed linemen to use their hands and extend their arms in pass blocking. They also prohibited DBs from hitting WRs more than 10 yds down the field (it's 5 now). This change in rules, in turn, husbanded the birth of the WCO and its emphasis on short, low risk passes.

You see, back in Starr's day, QBs threw deep. I mean WAY deep. In 1966, Starr averaged a whopping 9 yards per attempt. Favre has never hit 8. So Starr's accuracy numbers are going to be lower, as will his raw yardage numbers given that teams passed far less frequently.

Finally, you say that Starr was surrounded by HoF talent -- fair enough, but then Starr had to play against a lot of HoF talent. Also, Starr did ok even with non-HoFers, like Super Max. And while Holmgren is no Lombardi, he's also considered one of the best offensive minds of his era, so it's not like Favre had crap coaches.

We should thank the heavens that our favorite team has been blessed with all-time greats like Starr and Favre. I'm thinking they don't have debates like this over at the Bear forums.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I love this kind of stuff.

But TB, please, more love for Starr. Here are some things you're not thinking about.

As others have said, the game has changed big time since Starr played, both in rules and in strategy. In 1978, the NFL Rules Committee allowed linemen to use their hands and extend their arms in pass blocking. They also prohibited DBs from hitting WRs more than 10 yds down the field (it's 5 now). This change in rules, in turn, husbanded the birth of the WCO and its emphasis on short, low risk passes.

You see, back in Starr's day, QBs threw deep. I mean WAY deep. In 1966, Starr averaged a whopping 9 yards per attempt. Favre has never hit 8. So Starr's accuracy numbers are going to be lower, as will his raw yardage numbers given that teams passed far less frequently.

Finally, you say that Starr was surrounded by HoF talent -- fair enough, but then Starr had to play against a lot of HoF talent. Also, Starr did ok even with non-HoFers, like Super Max. And while Holmgren is no Lombardi, he's also considered one of the best offensive minds of his era, so it's not like Favre had crap coaches.

We should thank the heavens that our favorite team has been blessed with all-time greats like Starr and Favre. I'm thinking they don't have debates like this over at the Bear forums.

You have some excellent points.

Coaches: Brett didn't get to have consistency during his best years. 3 coaches in what, 3 years..or did RR coach 2...i try to block the RR years out.


YPA: Valid point..but, my point is that we barely threw. Starr isn't in the top 10 for attempts cept for 3 years outta 15. Favre 14 outta 17 and led the league 3 times, second 3 times. Favre has only been outta the top 5 once. Starr was in the top 5 once..and there were less teams.

HOF: Please, no team had the quality that the packers had. Certainly not in our division. Game is won on the line...Pack line will have not one HOF in all the years favre has played...not even a player that should be considered.

Pre central the teams were poor to mediocre in our divison..63 bears were good. 64/65 Colts good. NO OTHER TEAM WON 9 games.

Central: mediocrity is your name..cept for the vikes in 69. End of his career the vikes and Lions were good (well, one season for them). No point in discussing 71.

My biggest point is that under Lombardi ran to set up the pass. He ran the ball almost double the passes.

Favre threw the ball to set up the run..cept for a couple of ahman years..and even then we still threw the ball equal.

Look, Starr is HOF. But, to include in him top 10 is ridiculous. Or to say he is better than Favre...not a chance.

[The Shadow]

I love this kind of stuff.

But TB, please, more love for Starr. Here are some things you're not thinking about.

As others have said, the game has changed big time since Starr played, both in rules and in strategy. In 1978, the NFL Rules Committee allowed linemen to use their hands and extend their arms in pass blocking. They also prohibited DBs from hitting WRs more than 10 yds down the field (it's 5 now). This change in rules, in turn, husbanded the birth of the WCO and its emphasis on short, low risk passes.

You see, back in Starr's day, QBs threw deep. I mean WAY deep. In 1966, Starr averaged a whopping 9 yards per attempt. Favre has never hit 8. So Starr's accuracy numbers are going to be lower, as will his raw yardage numbers given that teams passed far less frequently.

Finally, you say that Starr was surrounded by HoF talent -- fair enough, but then Starr had to play against a lot of HoF talent. Also, Starr did ok even with non-HoFers, like Super Max. And while Holmgren is no Lombardi, he's also considered one of the best offensive minds of his era, so it's not like Favre had crap coaches.

We should thank the heavens that our favorite team has been blessed with all-time greats like Starr and Favre. I'm thinking they don't have debates like this over at the Bear forums.

You have some excellent points.

Coaches: Brett didn't get to have consistency during his best years. 3 coaches in what, 3 years..or did RR coach 2...i try to block the RR years out.


YPA: Valid point..but, my point is that we barely threw. Starr isn't in the top 10 for attempts cept for 3 years outta 15. Favre 14 outta 17 and led the league 3 times, second 3 times. Favre has only been outta the top 5 once. Starr was in the top 5 once..and there were less teams.

HOF: Please, no team had the quality that the packers had. Certainly not in our division. Game is won on the line...Pack line will have not one HOF in all the years favre has played...not even a player that should be considered.

Pre central the teams were poor to mediocre in our divison..63 bears were good. 64/65 Colts good. NO OTHER TEAM WON 9 games.

Central: mediocrity is your name..cept for the vikes in 69. End of his career the vikes and Lions were good (well, one season for them). No point in discussing 71.

My biggest point is that under Lombardi ran to set up the pass. He ran the ball almost double the passes.

Favre threw the ball to set up the run..cept for a couple of ahman years..and even then we still threw the ball equal.

Look, Starr is HOF. But, to include in him top 10 is ridiculous. Or to say he is better than Favre...not a chance.

.................................................. .........................................

How nice to be young and unfettered by legitimate discernment. Sigh....

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I love this kind of stuff.

But TB, please, more love for Starr. Here are some things you're not thinking about.

As others have said, the game has changed big time since Starr played, both in rules and in strategy. In 1978, the NFL Rules Committee allowed linemen to use their hands and extend their arms in pass blocking. They also prohibited DBs from hitting WRs more than 10 yds down the field (it's 5 now). This change in rules, in turn, husbanded the birth of the WCO and its emphasis on short, low risk passes.

You see, back in Starr's day, QBs threw deep. I mean WAY deep. In 1966, Starr averaged a whopping 9 yards per attempt. Favre has never hit 8. So Starr's accuracy numbers are going to be lower, as will his raw yardage numbers given that teams passed far less frequently.

Finally, you say that Starr was surrounded by HoF talent -- fair enough, but then Starr had to play against a lot of HoF talent. Also, Starr did ok even with non-HoFers, like Super Max. And while Holmgren is no Lombardi, he's also considered one of the best offensive minds of his era, so it's not like Favre had crap coaches.

We should thank the heavens that our favorite team has been blessed with all-time greats like Starr and Favre. I'm thinking they don't have debates like this over at the Bear forums.

You have some excellent points.

Coaches: Brett didn't get to have consistency during his best years. 3 coaches in what, 3 years..or did RR coach 2...i try to block the RR years out.


YPA: Valid point..but, my point is that we barely threw. Starr isn't in the top 10 for attempts cept for 3 years outta 15. Favre 14 outta 17 and led the league 3 times, second 3 times. Favre has only been outta the top 5 once. Starr was in the top 5 once..and there were less teams.

HOF: Please, no team had the quality that the packers had. Certainly not in our division. Game is won on the line...Pack line will have not one HOF in all the years favre has played...not even a player that should be considered.

Pre central the teams were poor to mediocre in our divison..63 bears were good. 64/65 Colts good. NO OTHER TEAM WON 9 games.

Central: mediocrity is your name..cept for the vikes in 69. End of his career the vikes and Lions were good (well, one season for them). No point in discussing 71.

My biggest point is that under Lombardi ran to set up the pass. He ran the ball almost double the passes.

Favre threw the ball to set up the run..cept for a couple of ahman years..and even then we still threw the ball equal.

Look, Starr is HOF. But, to include in him top 10 is ridiculous. Or to say he is better than Favre...not a chance.

.................................................. .........................................

How nice to be young and unfettered by legitimate discernment. Sigh....

First, how flattering to be called young. You don't know my age. I thought as you grew older you were supposed to be wiser..guess not.

How nice to be old unfettered by logic and facts. Anecdotal evidence is so much better. Neurons barely firing, rheumy eyes, and distant memories. Sigh...

[The Shadow]

I love this kind of stuff.

But TB, please, more love for Starr. Here are some things you're not thinking about.

As others have said, the game has changed big time since Starr played, both in rules and in strategy. In 1978, the NFL Rules Committee allowed linemen to use their hands and extend their arms in pass blocking. They also prohibited DBs from hitting WRs more than 10 yds down the field (it's 5 now). This change in rules, in turn, husbanded the birth of the WCO and its emphasis on short, low risk passes.

You see, back in Starr's day, QBs threw deep. I mean WAY deep. In 1966, Starr averaged a whopping 9 yards per attempt. Favre has never hit 8. So Starr's accuracy numbers are going to be lower, as will his raw yardage numbers given that teams passed far less frequently.

Finally, you say that Starr was surrounded by HoF talent -- fair enough, but then Starr had to play against a lot of HoF talent. Also, Starr did ok even with non-HoFers, like Super Max. And while Holmgren is no Lombardi, he's also considered one of the best offensive minds of his era, so it's not like Favre had crap coaches.

We should thank the heavens that our favorite team has been blessed with all-time greats like Starr and Favre. I'm thinking they don't have debates like this over at the Bear forums.

You have some excellent points.

Coaches: Brett didn't get to have consistency during his best years. 3 coaches in what, 3 years..or did RR coach 2...i try to block the RR years out.


YPA: Valid point..but, my point is that we barely threw. Starr isn't in the top 10 for attempts cept for 3 years outta 15. Favre 14 outta 17 and led the league 3 times, second 3 times. Favre has only been outta the top 5 once. Starr was in the top 5 once..and there were less teams.

HOF: Please, no team had the quality that the packers had. Certainly not in our division. Game is won on the line...Pack line will have not one HOF in all the years favre has played...not even a player that should be considered.

Pre central the teams were poor to mediocre in our divison..63 bears were good. 64/65 Colts good. NO OTHER TEAM WON 9 games.

Central: mediocrity is your name..cept for the vikes in 69. End of his career the vikes and Lions were good (well, one season for them). No point in discussing 71.

My biggest point is that under Lombardi ran to set up the pass. He ran the ball almost double the passes.

Favre threw the ball to set up the run..cept for a couple of ahman years..and even then we still threw the ball equal.

Look, Starr is HOF. But, to include in him top 10 is ridiculous. Or to say he is better than Favre...not a chance.

.................................................. .........................................

How nice to be young and unfettered by legitimate discernment. Sigh....

First, how flattering to be called young. 1. You don't know my age. I thought as you grew older you were supposed to be wiser..guess not.

2. How nice to be old unfettered by logic and facts. 3. Anecdotal evidence is so much better. 4. Neurons barely firing, rheumy eyes, and distant memories. Sigh...

.................................................. ...........................................

1. Too young.
2. In Orwell's '1984', protagonist Winston Smith was tortured into disavowing the evidence of what his own senses and life experiences suggested. Three fingers held in front of his face became four, four became five.
Not there yet, bucko. Starr was the superior quarterback.
3. 'Anecdotal'? That suggests some type of oral history passed down to me.
Sorry : I followed the entire careers of both players.
I know you desperately want the distinction of having 'seen the best', and I understand the fervor with which you insist the truth must be a truth you desire.
But sometimes you've got to open up a bit to primary sources......
4. But so peaceful!

.................................................. ................................................
OR, we can play it your way.
Nick Barnett is a better linebacker than Ray Nitschke
And any other player you like MUST be far superior to any player you didn't see.
That 'logic' can engender so many worthwhile claims.
Bill Clinton was a better president than Abe Lincoln, for example.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I love this kind of stuff.

But TB, please, more love for Starr. Here are some things you're not thinking about.

As others have said, the game has changed big time since Starr played, both in rules and in strategy. In 1978, the NFL Rules Committee allowed linemen to use their hands and extend their arms in pass blocking. They also prohibited DBs from hitting WRs more than 10 yds down the field (it's 5 now). This change in rules, in turn, husbanded the birth of the WCO and its emphasis on short, low risk passes.

You see, back in Starr's day, QBs threw deep. I mean WAY deep. In 1966, Starr averaged a whopping 9 yards per attempt. Favre has never hit 8. So Starr's accuracy numbers are going to be lower, as will his raw yardage numbers given that teams passed far less frequently.

Finally, you say that Starr was surrounded by HoF talent -- fair enough, but then Starr had to play against a lot of HoF talent. Also, Starr did ok even with non-HoFers, like Super Max. And while Holmgren is no Lombardi, he's also considered one of the best offensive minds of his era, so it's not like Favre had crap coaches.

We should thank the heavens that our favorite team has been blessed with all-time greats like Starr and Favre. I'm thinking they don't have debates like this over at the Bear forums.

You have some excellent points.

Coaches: Brett didn't get to have consistency during his best years. 3 coaches in what, 3 years..or did RR coach 2...i try to block the RR years out.


YPA: Valid point..but, my point is that we barely threw. Starr isn't in the top 10 for attempts cept for 3 years outta 15. Favre 14 outta 17 and led the league 3 times, second 3 times. Favre has only been outta the top 5 once. Starr was in the top 5 once..and there were less teams.

HOF: Please, no team had the quality that the packers had. Certainly not in our division. Game is won on the line...Pack line will have not one HOF in all the years favre has played...not even a player that should be considered.

Pre central the teams were poor to mediocre in our divison..63 bears were good. 64/65 Colts good. NO OTHER TEAM WON 9 games.

Central: mediocrity is your name..cept for the vikes in 69. End of his career the vikes and Lions were good (well, one season for them). No point in discussing 71.

My biggest point is that under Lombardi ran to set up the pass. He ran the ball almost double the passes.

Favre threw the ball to set up the run..cept for a couple of ahman years..and even then we still threw the ball equal.

Look, Starr is HOF. But, to include in him top 10 is ridiculous. Or to say he is better than Favre...not a chance.

.................................................. .........................................

How nice to be young and unfettered by legitimate discernment. Sigh....

First, how flattering to be called young. 1. You don't know my age. I thought as you grew older you were supposed to be wiser..guess not.

2. How nice to be old unfettered by logic and facts. 3. Anecdotal evidence is so much better. 4. Neurons barely firing, rheumy eyes, and distant memories. Sigh...

.................................................. ...........................................

1. Too young.
2. In Orwell's '1984', protagonist Winston Smith was tortured into disavowing the evidence of what his own senses and life experiences suggested. Three fingers held in front of his face became four, four became five.
Not there yet, bucko. Starr was the superior quarterback.
3. 'Anecdotal'? That suggests some type of oral history passed down to me.
Sorry : I followed the entire careers of both players.
I know you desperately want the distinction of having 'seen the best', and I understand the fervor with which you insist the truth must be a truth you desire.
But sometimes you've got to open up a bit to primary sources......
4. But so peaceful!

.................................................. ................................................
OR, we can play it your way.
Nick Barnett is a better linebacker than Ray Nitschke
And any other player you like MUST be far superior to any player you didn't see.
That 'logic' can engender so many worthwhile claims.
Bill Clinton was a better president than Abe Lincoln, for example.

1. Again, you don't know my age. How do you know that I didn't watch Starr myself? Kind of dumb to make assumptions.
2. Exactly. The whole world for the most part is telling you Favre is better. Yet you can't see it. Senses and life experience don't make you right.

Are you trying to say that just about every writer/judge of QBs is in league to convince us that Favre was better because they are evil? Perhaps they are right and you are wrong.

My mom use to say that if you believe the sky is red and everyone else tells you it is blue, then it is best to believe it is blue. EVERYONE IS TELLING YOU THE SKY IS BLUE.

3. You need to bone up on the english language.

"based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence."

How many times do i have to say i have no interest in having seen the best...let alone calling favre that. I still put montana ahead of him.

4. Well, ignorance is bliss.

Nitschke..c'mon that is absurd. When barnett actually is all pro or even considered for the HOF then you can make such a stupid argument. I sure wouldn't make that one.

As for Prez..that is a subjective determination with no facts associated with it.

If you are trying to prove your points at least make the analogies comparable.[/quote]

[The Shadow]

I love this kind of stuff.

But TB, please, more love for Starr. Here are some things you're not thinking about.

As others have said, the game has changed big time since Starr played, both in rules and in strategy. In 1978, the NFL Rules Committee allowed linemen to use their hands and extend their arms in pass blocking. They also prohibited DBs from hitting WRs more than 10 yds down the field (it's 5 now). This change in rules, in turn, husbanded the birth of the WCO and its emphasis on short, low risk passes.

You see, back in Starr's day, QBs threw deep. I mean WAY deep. In 1966, Starr averaged a whopping 9 yards per attempt. Favre has never hit 8. So Starr's accuracy numbers are going to be lower, as will his raw yardage numbers given that teams passed far less frequently.

Finally, you say that Starr was surrounded by HoF talent -- fair enough, but then Starr had to play against a lot of HoF talent. Also, Starr did ok even with non-HoFers, like Super Max. And while Holmgren is no Lombardi, he's also considered one of the best offensive minds of his era, so it's not like Favre had crap coaches.

We should thank the heavens that our favorite team has been blessed with all-time greats like Starr and Favre. I'm thinking they don't have debates like this over at the Bear forums.

You have some excellent points.

Coaches: Brett didn't get to have consistency during his best years. 3 coaches in what, 3 years..or did RR coach 2...i try to block the RR years out.


YPA: Valid point..but, my point is that we barely threw. Starr isn't in the top 10 for attempts cept for 3 years outta 15. Favre 14 outta 17 and led the league 3 times, second 3 times. Favre has only been outta the top 5 once. Starr was in the top 5 once..and there were less teams.

HOF: Please, no team had the quality that the packers had. Certainly not in our division. Game is won on the line...Pack line will have not one HOF in all the years favre has played...not even a player that should be considered.

Pre central the teams were poor to mediocre in our divison..63 bears were good. 64/65 Colts good. NO OTHER TEAM WON 9 games.

Central: mediocrity is your name..cept for the vikes in 69. End of his career the vikes and Lions were good (well, one season for them). No point in discussing 71.

My biggest point is that under Lombardi ran to set up the pass. He ran the ball almost double the passes.

Favre threw the ball to set up the run..cept for a couple of ahman years..and even then we still threw the ball equal.

Look, Starr is HOF. But, to include in him top 10 is ridiculous. Or to say he is better than Favre...not a chance.

.................................................. .........................................

How nice to be young and unfettered by legitimate discernment. Sigh....

First, how flattering to be called young. 1. You don't know my age. I thought as you grew older you were supposed to be wiser..guess not.

2. How nice to be old unfettered by logic and facts. 3. Anecdotal evidence is so much better. 4. Neurons barely firing, rheumy eyes, and distant memories. Sigh...

.................................................. ...........................................

1. Too young.
2. In Orwell's '1984', protagonist Winston Smith was tortured into disavowing the evidence of what his own senses and life experiences suggested. Three fingers held in front of his face became four, four became five.
Not there yet, bucko. Starr was the superior quarterback.
3. 'Anecdotal'? That suggests some type of oral history passed down to me.
Sorry : I followed the entire careers of both players.
I know you desperately want the distinction of having 'seen the best', and I understand the fervor with which you insist the truth must be a truth you desire.
But sometimes you've got to open up a bit to primary sources......
4. But so peaceful!

.................................................. ................................................
OR, we can play it your way.
Nick Barnett is a better linebacker than Ray Nitschke
And any other player you like MUST be far superior to any player you didn't see.
That 'logic' can engender so many worthwhile claims.
Bill Clinton was a better president than Abe Lincoln, for example.

1. Again, you don't know my age. How do you know that I didn't watch Starr myself? Kind of dumb to make assumptions.
2. Exactly. The whole world for the most part is telling you Favre is better. Yet you can't see it. Senses and life experience don't make you right.

Are you trying to say that just about every writer/judge of QBs is in league to convince us that Favre was better because they are evil? Perhaps they are right and you are wrong.

My mom use to say that if you believe the sky is red and everyone else tells you it is blue, then it is best to believe it is blue. EVERYONE IS TELLING YOU THE SKY IS BLUE.

3. You need to bone up on the english language.
"based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence."

How many times do i have to say i have no interest in having seen the best...let alone calling favre that. I still put montana ahead of him.

4. Well, ignorance is bliss.

5. Nitschke..c'mon that is absurd. When barnett actually is all pro or even considered for the HOF then you can make such a stupid argument. I sure wouldn't make that one.
6. As for Prez..that is a subjective determination with no facts associated with it.

If you are trying to prove your points at least make the analogies comparable.[/quote]


1. I assumed that your strident insistence on Favre over Starr, and your disregard for personal observation of events more than 3 years ago, surely would be coming from a young person.
2. So, I am then to doubt my own eyes and go along with the crowd? Again, the immaturity level of joining popular, popular bandwagons over objective evaluation points to, shall we say, a 'very youthful outlook'?
3. Ummm... English needs to be capitalized here, professor.
4. Sometimes. apparently.
5. Why not? It lines up rather well with the pattern of your reasoning.
6. Good Lord! I suspect you actually do consider Slick Willie in the team photo with Honest Abe!!!!

Come on, Ty - why are you so threatened by a Packer fan - who followed both - to have an objective opinion outside the confines of popular lockstep thinking?

[KYPack]

Boys,

Quit quoting each other.

This thread is longer than the State of Idaho.

You don't need to quote, we know what you've been sayin'!

[HarveyWallbangers]

This thread is longer than the State of Idaho.

Funny. I hadn't heard that before.