Top 7 QB's of all time

[Brando19]

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/billsnfl/story/305852.html

Now that the hullabaloo about Brett Favre’s retirement has died down, at least until he might change his mind sometime before August, the movement to crown him the best pro quarterback of all time has died down with it.

That’s good, since the same sort of stampede was in place most of January when the New England Patriots were not only on the verge of another Super Bowl championship but about to accomplish a 19-0 perfect season. We all know what happened with that concept.

I’ve thought long and hard about it and have come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to pick a No. 1 quarterback of all time. There are just too many football eras involved and the position, at least the pro version, doesn’t remain the same. Rules change, as does equipment, training methods and strategies.

The best I could do was come up with the seven best quarterbacks of all time, with another possibility a current work in progress. These are the seven, in alphabetical order with their main team and years of competition:

• Sammy Baugh, Washington Redskins, 1937-1952.

• Tom Brady, New England Patriots, 2000- present.

• John Elway, Denver Broncos, 1983-1998.

• Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers, 1991-2007 (unless he comes back).

• Otto Graham, Cleveland Browns, 1946-1955.

• Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers, 1979-1994.

• Johnny Unitas, Baltimore Colts, 1956-1973.

• On deck: Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts, 1998-present.

For younger readers who might have uttered “who?” upon reading the names of Baugh and Graham, some explanation might come in handy.

Baugh last played 55 seasons ago but he still holds or is tied for six Redskins records: most touchdown passes in a career, 187; best punting average career, 45.1; most passing yards in a game, 446; most touchdown passes in a game, six; best punting average in a season, 51.4 yards, which remains an NFL record also; and most passes intercepted in a game, four. The last record occurred in 1943, when most of the veteran players were in the armed forces during World War II and Sammy was among those old guys who had to play both offense and defense.

I never saw Baugh play but the old-time players with whom I spoke swore no one was better at slinging the football, even when it was fat and unpebbled.

Graham was one of the first two-sport pro athletes. He graduated from Northwestern during the war and was enrolled in the Navy’s V-12 program at Colgate. On his nights off, he drove up to Rochester to play with the Rochester Royals (now the Sacramento Kings) of the NBA. When the war ended Graham began his pro football career with the Browns of the new All-America Conference and led them to four league championships in the AAFC’s four years of existence.

In the Browns’ first game as a member of the NFL, Graham led Cleveland to a 34-10 pounding of the old league’s champion, the Philadelphia Eagles, then to the NFL title. In his 10-year career the Browns won either their league or conference title. In his final two years he spearheaded Cleveland’s blowout championship victories over the Detroit Lions and Los Angeles Rams.

It’s interesting that Baugh, Graham and Unitas pretty much followed each other in successive dominations. Then there was a six-year pause before Joe Montana defined the West Coast offense and assumed the crown. Elway and Favre overlapped each other. Now Brady, 30, and Manning, who turns 31 on Monday, should spend the next five seasons battling over which one is the best of their era.

[Brando19]

Pretty crazy article to leave out Dan Marino.

[packinpatland]

I wouldn't have put Brady on the list......there's still time for him to crash and burn. :twisted:

[GrnBay007]

I wouldn't have put Brady on the list......there's still time for him to crash and burn. :twisted:

:lol:

[b bulldog]

Agree, both him and Manning could elevate themselves even more or both could do damage to themselves also.

[MJZiggy]

Pretty crazy article to leave out Dan Marino.

He stayed a bit too long and, sadly, that's what people are remembering. They should have been remembering who held all those records that Favre broke, though.

[KYPack]

Larry Felser has replaced John Steadman as the crabby old guy NFL writer. From a historical perspective it's a pretty good list. If you wanna have all the passers, you'd have to add Arnie Herber and Benny Friedman. Herber retired as the leagues leading passer and had a gun. Herber broke Friedman's records and he could truly sling it too.

[Chester Marcol]

What's the criteria for this list? If it's not choking away your teams chances to get to and win super bowls, Aikman should be on that list.

Steve Young is another one for the modern era. I'd take his passer rating over Favre's.

Just to name a couple.

[packinpatland]

Steve Young.... yes, Aikman.... no.

[MadtownPacker]

What's the criteria for this list? If it's not choking away your teams chances to get to and win super bowls, Aikman should be on that list.

Steve Young is another one for the modern era. I'd take his passer rating over Favre's.

Just to name a couple.How can you complain about choking away playoff games then you go pick Young over Favre after Favre owned Young in the playoff?

Would have been perfect against him had it not been for the rice fumble that wasn't reviewable.

[Tarlam!]

With some old time Pack fans saying Bart Starr was the best QB ever to don the Green and gold, I have to ask why his name is not on the list. Or, are we in perfect agreement that Brett was the clar #1 GB QB?

[The Leaper]

With some old time Pack fans saying Bart Starr was the best QB ever to don the Green and gold, I have to ask why his name is not on the list. Or, are we in perfect agreement that Brett was the clar #1 GB QB?

If Starr himself claims he can't hold a candle to Brett, then who are any of us to argue?

Brett is the greatest QB ever to wear a GB uniform. Starr is the most successful.

[Tarlam!]

So success isn't measured in Championships... Great to know.

[Gunakor]

What's the criteria for this list? If it's not choking away your teams chances to get to and win super bowls, Aikman should be on that list.

Steve Young is another one for the modern era. I'd take his passer rating over Favre's.

Just to name a couple.




Idk about Aikman. Aikman's career was benefited greatly by playing with Michael Irvin, who wasn't a truly great reciever but was one of the best at pushing off to gain position and not getting called for it. Having one of the best RB's and maybe THE best OL in the history of the game didn't hurt him either. That defense was very impressive also, which means Aikman wasn't playing from behind nearly as much as Favre was. Aikman wasn't taking nearly the same chances Favre took, so it's no suprise that his passer rating was better. But the Dallas Cowboys carried Troy Aikman, whereas Brett Favre carried the Green Bay Packers. The two aren't even comparable - Favre is a far better QB than Aikman ever was.

[Tarlam!]

Welcome to the forum Gunakor! 8-)

[The Shadow]

With some old time Pack fans saying Bart Starr was the best QB ever to don the Green and gold, I have to ask why his name is not on the list. Or, are we in perfect agreement that Brett was the clar #1 GB QB?

If Starr himself claims he can't hold a candle to Brett, then who are any of us to argue?
Brett is the greatest QB ever to wear a GB uniform. Starr is the most successful.

Well, me, for one.
Could it perhaps be just possible that Bart has far too much class to toot his own horn?
And : exactly how does less successful translate to 'greatest'?

[Gunakor]

Thanks :D

[The Shadow]

With some old time Pack fans saying Bart Starr was the best QB ever to don the Green and gold, I have to ask why his name is not on the list. Or, are we in perfect agreement that Brett was the clar #1 GB QB?

No. And just when are we EVER in perfect agreement????

[MadtownPacker]

With some old time Pack fans saying Bart Starr was the best QB ever to don the Green and gold, I have to ask why his name is not on the list. Or, are we in perfect agreement that Brett was the clar #1 GB QB?

If Starr himself claims he can't hold a candle to Brett, then who are any of us to argue?
Brett is the greatest QB ever to wear a GB uniform. Starr is the most successful.

Well, me, for one.
Could it perhaps be just possible that Bart has far too much class to toot his own horn?
And : exactly how does less successful translate to 'greatest'?Damn Gramps, thought you had croaked already since you hadnt been around.

IMO championships define great teams. Individual stats define great players.

If you dont agree then how do you explain Barry Sanders?

[Charles Woodson]

With some old time Pack fans saying Bart Starr was the best QB ever to don the Green and gold, I have to ask why his name is not on the list. Or, are we in perfect agreement that Brett was the clar #1 GB QB?

If Starr himself claims he can't hold a candle to Brett, then who are any of us to argue?
Brett is the greatest QB ever to wear a GB uniform. Starr is the most successful.

Well, me, for one.
Could it perhaps be just possible that Bart has far too much class to toot his own horn?
And : exactly how does less successful translate to 'greatest'?

I think its possible to be a better QB but not as successful, just ask Dan Marino

[MadtownPacker]

Having one of the best RB's and maybe THE best OL in the history of the game didn't hurt him either. That defense was very impressive also, which means Aikman wasn't playing from behind nearly as much as Favre was. Aikman wasn't taking nearly the same chances Favre took, so it's no suprise that his passer rating was better. But the Dallas Cowboys carried Troy Aikman, whereas Brett Favre carried the Green Bay Packers. The two aren't even comparable - Favre is a far better QB than Aikman ever was.Great post man! Welcome to the forum.

[Pack-man]

What's the criteria for this list? If it's not choking away your teams chances to get to and win super bowls, Aikman should be on that list.

Steve Young is another one for the modern era. I'd take his passer rating over Favre's.

Just to name a couple.




Idk about Aikman. Aikman's career was benefited greatly by playing with Michael Irvin, who wasn't a truly great reciever but was one of the best at pushing off to gain position and not getting called for it. Having one of the best RB's and maybe THE best OL in the history of the game didn't hurt him either. That defense was very impressive also, which means Aikman wasn't playing from behind nearly as much as Favre was. Aikman wasn't taking nearly the same chances Favre took, so it's no suprise that his passer rating was better. But the Dallas Cowboys carried Troy Aikman, whereas Brett Favre carried the Green Bay Packers. The two aren't even comparable - Favre is a far better QB than Aikman ever was.

Gotta agree with ya. Aikman had much more talent offensively around him than Favre did. He had a Hall of Fame RB & Hall of Fame receiver. The only Hall of Fame player Favre ever played with was Reggie White.

The best receiver Favre ever had was Sterling Sharpe and Brett got better after Sharpe left!

[The Leaper]

Bart Starr never had to carry the load as an NFL QB. He threw an average of 16 times a game in his entire career. 4 passes a quarter is hardly my notion of a guy who is being called on to carry the offense.

Was he calm under pressure? Of course. Was he a tremendous leader and field general? Of course. Was he talented enough to overcome lacking resources around him? No. He proved that quite well early in his career before Lombardi came to town.

FYI...by way of comparison, Favre averaged 21 pass completions a game during his career. He completed 5 more passes caught on average than Starr attempted. That is the definition of a guy who is carrying his offense.

Bart Starr could never have won SB 31 for the Packers...he did not possess the talent to win when surrounded with mediocre players like Robert Brooks, Don Beebe, Edgar Bennett, Mark Chumura, etc. The only reason we look back on those guys with good thoughts is because of Brett Favre. His talent was what made our otherwise lackluster offense potent.

Bart Starr was a tremendous leader who sucessfully managed the riches of resources he was blessed to operate with. For that, he deserves plenty of credit...because there are numerous examples of others blessed with much who did far less.

However, as a QB, Starr doesn't hold a candle to Favre. Favre has infinitely greater arm strength, accuracy, and pocket presence. His ability to make others around him better is the hallmark of a great player. Starr didn't need to make Hornung, Taylor or the OL better...he only had to ensure they were all on the same page. He did a damn fine job of it, but that doesn't make him a great QB...just a great leader.

That is the difference.

[Zool]

You take back what you said about Don Beebe right now.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Aikman has no business being on the greatest QB's list. Frankly, I don't think he's even HOF worthy either.

In 12 seasons, he only played the whole year twice. He had 165 TDs and 141 INTs total, with only 1 season with more than 20 TDs. That's nowhere near HOF worthy let alone even in the discussion of greatest QBs ever.

[Scott Campbell]

If you dont agree then how do you explain Barry Sanders?



He played for the Lions.

[The Shadow]

Bart Starr never had to carry the load as an NFL QB. He threw an average of 16 times a game in his entire career. 4 passes a quarter is 1. hardly my notion of a guy who is being called on to carry the offense.
Was he calm under pressure? Of course. Was he a tremendous leader and field general? Of course. Was he talented enough to overcome lacking resources around him? No. He proved that quite well early in his career before Lombardi came to town.

FYI...by way of comparison, Favre averaged 21 pass completions a game during his career. He completed 5 more passes caught on average than Starr attempted. That is the definition of a guy who is carrying his offense.

2. Bart Starr could never have won SB 31 for the Packers...he did not possess the talent to win when surrounded with mediocre players like Robert Brooks, Don Beebe, Edgar Bennett, Mark Chumura, etc. The only reason we look back on those guys with good thoughts is because of Brett Favre. His talent was what made our otherwise lackluster offense potent.

Bart Starr was a tremendous leader who sucessfully managed the riches of resources he was blessed to operate with. For that, he deserves plenty of credit...because there are numerous examples of others blessed with much who did far less.

3.However, as a QB, Starr doesn't hold a candle to Favre. Favre has infinitely greater arm strength, accuracy, and pocket presence. His ability to make others around him better is the hallmark of a great player. Starr didn't need to make Hornung, Taylor or the OL better...he only had to ensure they were all on the same page. He did a damn fine job of it, but that doesn't make him a great QB...just a great leader.

That is the difference.

1. I suspect you are perhaps are a bit young to have viewed the Ice Bowl performance?
2. Absurd claim. History supports Starr's excellence in big games.
In point of fact, the only time Favre ever got the ultimate job done was when Ron Wolf surrounded him with clearly the most talented team in the league.
3. Understand the need to 'have seen the best!' But "hold a candle"?
Give me a break!

[b bulldog]

Just because Starr said that, that doesn't make it so. Brett himself said after breaking Dan's records that he doesn't see himself in the same league as Dan. These guys talk like this all of the time.

[HarveyWallbangers]

• Sammy Baugh, Washington Redskins, 1937-1952.
• Tom Brady, New England Patriots, 2000- present.
• John Elway, Denver Broncos, 1983-1998.
• Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers, 1991-2007.
• Otto Graham, Cleveland Browns, 1946-1955.
• Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers, 1979-1994.
• Johnny Unitas, Baltimore Colts, 1956-1973.
• On deck: Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts, 1998-present.

Personally, I think it's a great list--although I wouldn't put Manning or Brady on the list at this point.

My top 5 would be Montana, Unitas, Graham, Elway, and Favre. Not sure about Baugh. Marino would probably be #6 right now for me.

[MadtownPacker]

2. Absurd claim. History supports Starr's excellence in big games.
In point of fact, the only time Favre ever got the ultimate job done was when Ron Wolf surrounded him with clearly the most talented team in the league.
I know the nursing home only gives you so much time a day on the computer so I will make it brief. Dont want your eyes to start hurting.

Weren't the Packers the most talented team in the league for a large part of the 60s? Did Starr have a bunch of slouches he was picking up for? Did opponents score immediately after Starr threw a TD?

I didnt exist so I really dont know but if you remember I will be thankful and seriously impressed that you can remember stuff from when you where 50.

[The Shadow]

2. Absurd claim. History supports Starr's excellence in big games.
In point of fact, the only time Favre ever got the ultimate job done was when Ron Wolf surrounded him with clearly the most talented team in the league.
I know the nursing home only gives you so much time a day on the computer so I will make it brief. Dont want your eyes to start hurting.

Weren't the Packers the most talented team in the league for a large part of the 60s? Did Starr have a bunch of slouches he was picking up for? Did opponents score immediately after Starr threw a TD?

I didnt exist so I really dont know but if you remember I will be thankful and seriously impressed that you can remember stuff from when you where 50.

Don't make me stop the car, Mad.
Yes, they were a talented team for much of the 60's.
But so were the Packers in 97. They also had talent the years we blew it to Atlanta, blew it to Philly, blew it to the Giants.
Getting your team to the top - success - greatly factors into 'greatness'.

[The Leaper]

1. I suspect you are perhaps are a bit young to have viewed the Ice Bowl performance?

I guess you are perhaps a bit old to recall many of Favre's moments. Yes, Starr came up big in big games. However, he had a ridiculous amount of talent around him and never had to work hard to get to the big games. Starr never faced the physical abuse that Favre endured in his career behind mediocre OLs.


2. Absurd claim. History supports Starr's excellence in big games.

In point of fact, the only time Favre ever got the ultimate job done was when Ron Wolf surrounded him with clearly the most talented team in the league.

So it is your opinion then that the Packers would've won 5 titles in the last 15 years with Starr in place of Favre?

Funny, Bart Starr only won when Lombardi clearly put the most talented team in LEAGUE FUCKING HISTORY, not just one or two years, around him.

Yeah, Bart had a real tough road there. Gee, which HOF caliber person do I hand off to? Gee, which HOF caliber OL player do I run behind?

People like you conveniently forget how BAD Starr was before Lombardi came to town and surrounded him with a ridiculous amount of talent.

[The Shadow]

1. I suspect you are perhaps are a bit young to have viewed the Ice Bowl performance?

I guess you are perhaps a bit old to recall many of Favre's moments. Yes, Starr came up big in big games. However, he had a ridiculous amount of talent around him and never had to work hard to get to the big games. Starr never faced the physical abuse that Favre endured in his career behind mediocre OLs.


2. Absurd claim. History supports Starr's excellence in big games.

In point of fact, the only time Favre ever got the ultimate job done was when Ron Wolf surrounded him with clearly the most talented team in the league.

So it is your opinion then that the Packers would've won 5 titles in the last 15 years with Starr in place of Favre?

Funny, Bart Starr only won when Lombardi clearly put the most talented team in LEAGUE FUCKING HISTORY, not just one or two years, around him.

Yeah, Bart had a real tough road there. Gee, which HOF caliber person do I hand off to? Gee, which HOF caliber OL player do I run behind?

People like you conveniently forget how BAD Starr was before Lombardi came to town and surrounded him with a ridiculous amount of talent.

That is an entirely different category. Who would make THAT team?

[Chester Marcol]

The ole talent level around him argument. Still isn't old, eh? So, per that argument, we were good enough to get to the playoffs all those times, but didn't have talent. We were good enough to get to the championship game at home, but didn't have talent. And then the same argument leads to Favre making the people around him better. He sure made one Giants DB a hero.

I think greatness, in part, can be defined by how you perform when the pressure is on. The playoffs are obviously the best example but the Dallas game is a regular season example of not stepping up when the stakes are high. I'm sorry but after that interception against the Giants, I think that was the perfect play to end his career on. I'm sick of "that's Favre being Favre" with his throw to the tightest covered receiver on the field. That's selfishness or that's not being very good in a big moment. The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

[Patler]

A bit of history from personal observation for those too young to have watched the Packers in the 60s:

1. The Packers of the early 1960s were truly an outstanding team on which Bart Starr played somewhat of a supporting role.

2. The team begin to age around 1965, 1966. While the defense remained strong, the offense transitioned from one that relied on Hornung and Taylor to one that relied on Bart Starr.

3. The "three-peat" was an amazing accomplishment not so much for being 3 in a row as it was for being achieved by an aging team that was nowhere near as good as it had been.

4. During the first two of the "three peat" Jim Taylor was nowhere near the back that he had been, struggling to get 700 yards rushing each season with just over a 3 yard per carry average. Hornung was hurt, played sporadically and lost his starting position to Elijah Pitts. By the season of the third of the three championships, Hornung had retired, Taylor was trying to play in New Orleans and Bart Starr was supported by the likes of Donny Anderson, Ben Wilson and Chuck Mercein. Hardly Hall of Famers.

5. Bart Starr was the MVP of Super Bowls I and II because he earned it. Perhaps especially Super Bowl II. As I mentioned Hornung had retired, Taylor had moved on to New Orleans. The Packers leading rusher that year, Jim Grabowski, was lost to injury midway through the season. Elijah Pitts, their second most experienced and second best back was also injured. Donny Anderson started coming into his own, but really more as a receiver than as a runner. Ben Wilson and Chuck Mercein were brought in to fill the void as best they could.

6. Super Bowl I was played without Boyd Dowler, thus Max McGee became the hero after being a complete non factor during the season. He rarely played.


All in all, the backs Favre had in SBXXXI, Bennett, Levens and Henderson were every bit as good, if not better than the backs Starr had in SBI and SBII. Chmura and Jackson were far better receiving tight ends than was Marv Fleming. With Dowler out in Super Bowl I, the receiver's Favre had compared quite favorably. The defense supporting Favre in SBXXXI was as good as anything Starr had from about '65 on.

This idea that Starr played with a completely dominating team throughout the '60s is wrong. Early they did dominate, but as they aged injuries started to play a significant factor, and the replacements were not nearly as good. At the time of the mid and late '60s, Starr was acknowledged as the key element of the offense.

[Charles Woodson]

The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

Im gana pretend like you know what the fuck your talking about with the '03 Packers. Hmm lets take a look at the game shall we? Favre was over 50% completion percentage, 180yds, 2 TD and 1 Int.
But anytime when Robert Ferguson is your leading reciver theres a problem

Now yes we should have won the game... But should the
defense given up 4th and 26?

Mcnabb ran all over us, 11 rushes for 107 yds. Damn was that Bretts fault too?
how about late in the 2nd quarter when we went for it on the 1 and didnt get it? kick the field goal and we woulda won...
Mcnabb killed us, both times they scored the TD's they drove all through our Defense
Another time Brett had a 40 yd pass that got us to the 7 and we came away with 3 pts.

Yes, the Int hurt but there were bigger things that lead to the losing of the game.[/b]

[The Leaper]

This idea that Starr played with a completely dominating team throughout the '60s is wrong. Early they did dominate, but as they aged injuries started to play a significant factor, and the replacements were not nearly as good. At the time of the mid and late '60s, Starr was acknowledged as the key element of the offense.

The stats tell the truth.

1961 & 1962: Starr averaged just under 21 pass attempts a game.

1965 & 1966: Starr averaged just under 18 pass attempts a game.

How can he attempt 3 fewer passes a game on average, yet be the key element of the offense...as you suggest...compared to 3-4 years before when he was not? Starr's greatest number of attempts per game, which I think is an adequate statistic to measure how much a QB is relied on in the offense, came in 1961-1964...not later on, as you suggest.

As a way of comparison to guys in his era...for those who will argue that you can't compare Favre to Starr...Unitas averaged 25 pass attempts per game during his career as a full-time starter.

That is a startling comparison...Starr averaged 16 pass attempts a game in his career, Unitas averaged 25 pass attempts.

I don't think there is any way that you can honestly claim that Starr was more important to his team than a guy like Unitas. And Favre, like Unitas, carried the offensive load for his team throughout his career on good and bad teams alike...entirely unlike Starr, who was brilliant during the good years, but miserable in the lean ones.

[Chester Marcol]

The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

Im gana pretend like you know what the fuck your talking about with the '03 Packers. Hmm lets take a look at the game shall we? Favre was over 50% completion percentage, 180yds, 2 TD and 1 Int.
But anytime when Robert Ferguson is your leading reciver theres a problem

Now yes we should have won the game... But should the
defense given up 4th and 26?

Mcnabb ran all over us, 11 rushes for 107 yds. Damn was that Bretts fault too?
how about late in the 2nd quarter when we went for it on the 1 and didnt get it? kick the field goal and we woulda won...
Mcnabb killed us, both times they scored the TD's they drove all through our Defense
Another time Brett had a 40 yd pass that got us to the 7 and we came away with 3 pts.

Yes, the Int hurt but there were bigger things that lead to the losing of the game.[/b]

Bigger things that led to losing that game? My memory, aided by the drive chart aka what the fuck I'm talking about (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/drivechart?gameId=240111021), tells me that we were tied in OT with the ball on our own 42 yard line. That's prime field position in OT. We dodged our bullets and yet here we sit 0 to 0, sudden death, on our own 42. A piss away from field goal distance. The great ones elevate their play and find ways to will their team to win. How can that INT not be the biggest factor in us losing when it resulted in the Eagles scoring?

When people talk about Favre with the great ones like Jordan and Woods, the major difference between them and Favre is, Jordan and Woods hit the winning shots. Repeatedly. That's all I'm saying to those that talk about the greatest QB's. That's part of my criteria.

If you want, go ahead and keep blaming others for Favre's lack of playoff success. The fact is, the team made it to the playoffs so they couldn't have been that bad. The Broncos team that beat us in the SB were heavy underdogs for a reason. They just wanted it more and nothing personifies that any more than the spin Elway took. There was a QB who was part of willing that team on to victory. If you watch Favre in the Giants loss, it looked like he wanted to be anywhere but on that field at times.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

Im gana pretend like you know what the fuck your talking about with the '03 Packers. Hmm lets take a look at the game shall we? Favre was over 50% completion percentage, 180yds, 2 TD and 1 Int.
But anytime when Robert Ferguson is your leading reciver theres a problem

Now yes we should have won the game... But should the
defense given up 4th and 26?

Mcnabb ran all over us, 11 rushes for 107 yds. Damn was that Bretts fault too?
how about late in the 2nd quarter when we went for it on the 1 and didnt get it? kick the field goal and we woulda won...
Mcnabb killed us, both times they scored the TD's they drove all through our Defense
Another time Brett had a 40 yd pass that got us to the 7 and we came away with 3 pts.

Yes, the Int hurt but there were bigger things that lead to the losing of the game.[/b]

Bigger things that led to losing that game? My memory, aided by the drive chart aka what the fuck I'm talking about (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/drivechart?gameId=240111021), tells me that we were tied in OT with the ball on our own 42 yard line. That's prime field position in OT. We dodged our bullets and yet here we sit 0 to 0, sudden death, on our own 42. A piss away from field goal distance. The great ones elevate their play and find ways to will their team to win. How can that INT not be the biggest factor in us losing when it resulted in the Eagles scoring?

When people talk about Favre with the great ones like Jordan and Woods, the major difference between them and Favre is, Jordan and Woods hit the winning shots. Repeatedly. That's all I'm saying to those that talk about the greatest QB's. That's part of my criteria.

If you want, go ahead and keep blaming others for Favre's lack of playoff success. The fact is, the team made it to the playoffs so they couldn't have been that bad. The Broncos team that beat us in the SB were heavy underdogs for a reason. They just wanted it more and nothing personifies that any more than the spin Elway took. There was a QB who was part of willing that team on to victory. If you watch Favre in the Giants loss, it looked like he wanted to be anywhere but on that field at times.

Comparing Favre to Woods or Jordan is just dumb..on YOUR PART.

Unless Favre can complete a pass to himself he relies on others to pass black, run correct routes, and a catch the ball.

From what i've seen in bball and golf...you don't rely on anybody once the ball leaves your hand/club.

[The Shadow]

The ole talent level around him argument. Still isn't old, eh? So, per that argument, we were good enough to get to the playoffs all those times, but didn't have talent. We were good enough to get to the championship game at home, but didn't have talent. And then the same argument leads to Favre making the people around him better. He sure made one Giants DB a hero.

I think greatness, in part, can be defined by how you perform when the pressure is on. The playoffs are obviously the best example but the Dallas game is a regular season example of not stepping up when the stakes are high. I'm sorry but after that interception against the Giants, I think that was the perfect play to end his career on. I'm sick of "that's Favre being Favre" with his throw to the tightest covered receiver on the field. That's selfishness or that's not being very good in a big moment. The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

A voice of reason. It is too often drowned out by emotion.

[The Shadow]

A bit of history from personal observation for those too young to have watched the Packers in the 60s:

1. The Packers of the early 1960s were truly an outstanding team on which Bart Starr played somewhat of a supporting role.

2. The team begin to age around 1965, 1966. While the defense remained strong, the offense transitioned from one that relied on Hornung and Taylor to one that relied on Bart Starr.

3. The "three-peat" was an amazing accomplishment not so much for being 3 in a row as it was for being achieved by an aging team that was nowhere near as good as it had been.

4. During the first two of the "three peat" Jim Taylor was nowhere near the back that he had been, struggling to get 700 yards rushing each season with just over a 3 yard per carry average. Hornung was hurt, played sporadically and lost his starting position to Elijah Pitts. By the season of the third of the three championships, Hornung had retired, Taylor was trying to play in New Orleans and Bart Starr was supported by the likes of Donny Anderson, Ben Wilson and Chuck Mercein. Hardly Hall of Famers.

5. Bart Starr was the MVP of Super Bowls I and II because he earned it. Perhaps especially Super Bowl II. As I mentioned Hornung had retired, Taylor had moved on to New Orleans. The Packers leading rusher that year, Jim Grabowski, was lost to injury midway through the season. Elijah Pitts, their second most experienced and second best back was also injured. Donny Anderson started coming into his own, but really more as a receiver than as a runner. Ben Wilson and Chuck Mercein were brought in to fill the void as best they could.

6. Super Bowl I was played without Boyd Dowler, thus Max McGee became the hero after being a complete non factor during the season. He rarely played.


All in all, the backs Favre had in SBXXXI, Bennett, Levens and Henderson were every bit as good, if not better than the backs Starr had in SBI and SBII. Chmura and Jackson were far better receiving tight ends than was Marv Fleming. With Dowler out in Super Bowl I, the receiver's Favre had compared quite favorably. The defense supporting Favre in SBXXXI was as good as anything Starr had from about '65 on.

This idea that Starr played with a completely dominating team throughout the '60s is wrong. Early they did dominate, but as they aged injuries started to play a significant factor, and the replacements were not nearly as good. At the time of the mid and late '60s, Starr was acknowledged as the key element of the offense.

Another balanced perspective.
Another poster doomed to be pursued by torchbearing Packer Nation villagers wearing lederhosen.

[Chester Marcol]

The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

Im gana pretend like you know what the fuck your talking about with the '03 Packers. Hmm lets take a look at the game shall we? Favre was over 50% completion percentage, 180yds, 2 TD and 1 Int.
But anytime when Robert Ferguson is your leading reciver theres a problem

Now yes we should have won the game... But should the
defense given up 4th and 26?

Mcnabb ran all over us, 11 rushes for 107 yds. Damn was that Bretts fault too?
how about late in the 2nd quarter when we went for it on the 1 and didnt get it? kick the field goal and we woulda won...
Mcnabb killed us, both times they scored the TD's they drove all through our Defense
Another time Brett had a 40 yd pass that got us to the 7 and we came away with 3 pts.

Yes, the Int hurt but there were bigger things that lead to the losing of the game.[/b]

Bigger things that led to losing that game? My memory, aided by the drive chart aka what the fuck I'm talking about (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/drivechart?gameId=240111021), tells me that we were tied in OT with the ball on our own 42 yard line. That's prime field position in OT. We dodged our bullets and yet here we sit 0 to 0, sudden death, on our own 42. A piss away from field goal distance. The great ones elevate their play and find ways to will their team to win. How can that INT not be the biggest factor in us losing when it resulted in the Eagles scoring?

When people talk about Favre with the great ones like Jordan and Woods, the major difference between them and Favre is, Jordan and Woods hit the winning shots. Repeatedly. That's all I'm saying to those that talk about the greatest QB's. That's part of my criteria.

If you want, go ahead and keep blaming others for Favre's lack of playoff success. The fact is, the team made it to the playoffs so they couldn't have been that bad. The Broncos team that beat us in the SB were heavy underdogs for a reason. They just wanted it more and nothing personifies that any more than the spin Elway took. There was a QB who was part of willing that team on to victory. If you watch Favre in the Giants loss, it looked like he wanted to be anywhere but on that field at times.

Comparing Favre to Woods or Jordan is just dumb..on YOUR PART.

Unless Favre can complete a pass to himself he relies on others to pass black, run correct routes, and a catch the ball.

From what i've seen in bball and golf...you don't rely on anybody once the ball leaves your hand/club.

I'll give you that. However, on the picture that was taken just as Favre released the interception pass against the Giants(which was posted in a thread here) he had more open options. In that respect, it has nothing to do with anyone else but Favre. And that problem plagued him throughout his career and has been complained about here.

[Patler]

Leaper;

Looking at attempts per game in isolation is fairly meaning less. Let's look at what carried the offense of the Packers in the '60s:

In 1961, '62 & '63 the Packers averaged 168 yards rushing per game and 172 yards passing per game.

In 1965, '66 & 67 they averaged 120 yards per game rushing and 168 yards per game passing.

Rushing dropped 50 yards per game, passing decreased 4 yards per game. They changed from a team that achieved success offensively primarily by the success of Taylor, Hornung and Tom Moore running the ball to a team that achieved success offensively primarily by Starr. They got passing yards in '61-'63 on the tails of the running game with Taylor and others averaging 5+ yards/carry each season. In 65-67 they got passing yards on the skill of Bart Starr and a running game with most principal ball carriers averaging well under 4 yards/carry.

The team changed significantly from 1960-1964 to 1965-1967. In the early years, you didn't even think much about the passing game. In the later years most every significant play on offense was from Starr. The running game was very ho-hum

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

Im gana pretend like you know what the fuck your talking about with the '03 Packers. Hmm lets take a look at the game shall we? Favre was over 50% completion percentage, 180yds, 2 TD and 1 Int.
But anytime when Robert Ferguson is your leading reciver theres a problem

Now yes we should have won the game... But should the
defense given up 4th and 26?

Mcnabb ran all over us, 11 rushes for 107 yds. Damn was that Bretts fault too?
how about late in the 2nd quarter when we went for it on the 1 and didnt get it? kick the field goal and we woulda won...
Mcnabb killed us, both times they scored the TD's they drove all through our Defense
Another time Brett had a 40 yd pass that got us to the 7 and we came away with 3 pts.

Yes, the Int hurt but there were bigger things that lead to the losing of the game.[/b]

Bigger things that led to losing that game? My memory, aided by the drive chart aka what the fuck I'm talking about (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/drivechart?gameId=240111021), tells me that we were tied in OT with the ball on our own 42 yard line. That's prime field position in OT. We dodged our bullets and yet here we sit 0 to 0, sudden death, on our own 42. A piss away from field goal distance. The great ones elevate their play and find ways to will their team to win. How can that INT not be the biggest factor in us losing when it resulted in the Eagles scoring?

When people talk about Favre with the great ones like Jordan and Woods, the major difference between them and Favre is, Jordan and Woods hit the winning shots. Repeatedly. That's all I'm saying to those that talk about the greatest QB's. That's part of my criteria.

If you want, go ahead and keep blaming others for Favre's lack of playoff success. The fact is, the team made it to the playoffs so they couldn't have been that bad. The Broncos team that beat us in the SB were heavy underdogs for a reason. They just wanted it more and nothing personifies that any more than the spin Elway took. There was a QB who was part of willing that team on to victory. If you watch Favre in the Giants loss, it looked like he wanted to be anywhere but on that field at times.

Comparing Favre to Woods or Jordan is just dumb..on YOUR PART.

Unless Favre can complete a pass to himself he relies on others to pass black, run correct routes, and a catch the ball.

From what i've seen in bball and golf...you don't rely on anybody once the ball leaves your hand/club.

I'll give you that. However, on the picture that was taken just as Favre released the interception pass against the Giants(which was posted in a thread here) he had more open options. In that respect, it has nothing to do with anyone else but Favre. And that problem plagued him throughout his career and has been complained about here.

The issue of that throw wasn't the choice..it was a bad throw. Even jordan missed the basket 50% of the time, wasn't a 100% free throw shooter, and Tiger certainly doesn't hole in one/birdie every hole.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Leaper;

Looking at attempts per game in isolation is fairly meaning less. Let's look at what carried the offense of the Packers in the '60s:

In 1961, '62 & '63 the Packers averaged 168 yards rushing per game and 172 yards passing per game.

In 1965, '66 & 67 they averaged 120 yards per game rushing and 168 yards per game passing.

Rushing dropped 50 yards per game, passing decreased 4 yards per game. They changed from a team that achieved success offensively primarily by the success of Taylor, Hornung and Tom Moore running the ball to a team that achieved success offensively primarily by Starr. They got passing yards in '61-'63 on the tails of the running game with Taylor and others averaging 5+ yards/carry each season. In 65-67 they got passing yards on the skill of Bart Starr and a running game with most principal ball carriers averaging well under 4 yards/carry.

The team changed significantly from 1960-1964 to 1965-1967. In the early years, you didn't even think much about the passing game. In the later years most every significant play on offense was from Starr. The running game was very ho-hum

Patler,

He still had a great line, and most importantly had continuity in regards to coaching.

Vince...or Shermie, Walrus, RR, MM....i think at this point only one of those coaches can even be mentioned in the same paragraph as Vince..and he left right in Brett's prime.

[The Leaper]

The team changed significantly from 1960-1964 to 1965-1967. In the early years, you didn't even think much about the passing game. In the later years most every significant play on offense was from Starr. The running game was very ho-hum

Fine.

But all those "significant" plays from Starr netted 4 less yards passing a game than when we didn't even think about the passing game...according to you, anyway.

So how does that suggest that Starr is capable of carrying a team? Let me answer...IT DOESN'T.

I've always thought the success of Green Bay in the later years of the Lombardi dynasty were due primarily to the defense. The defense in the early years was not a playmaking group...didn't have to be, because as you pointed out the offense dominated so much on the ground that the defense rarely saw the field. Lombardi drafted many of his future defensive studs in those early years...and by the mid 1960s, the defense was a much greater force for the Packers because of guys like Wood, Nitschke, Davis and Adderly all hitting their prime together.

But, old farts continue to jack off to Bart Starr...and neglect to ever mention the incredible defense that was far better than any defense Brett Favre ever played with...including the Super Bowl champion team. Shadow sits here and has the audacity to claim that Favre could only win with the talent on the 1996 team...when Starr had a better team than that around him for 6-7 years!

That defense was downright nasty...and carried that Packer squad quite a bit in the later years of the Lombardi dynasty. Again...that isn't to say that Starr contributed too...just that claiming Starr was the catalyst for success in 1965 or 1966 ignores the HOF caliber stars on defense for the Packers.

Who did Favre have on defense in 2002 supporting him? Or 2004? The Packers defense was a sieve. Favre by himself practically carried the team to the Super Bowl in 2004. When did Starr ever accomplish that? He didn't have to during the Lombardi years...and he proved woefully inept when he wasn't surrounded by great HOF caliber talent.

[HarveyWallbangers]

All in all, the backs Favre had in SBXXXI, Bennett, Levens and Henderson were every bit as good, if not better than the backs Starr had in SBI and SBII. Chmura and Jackson were far better receiving tight ends than was Marv Fleming. With Dowler out in Super Bowl I, the receiver's Favre had compared quite favorably. The defense supporting Favre in SBXXXI was as good as anything Starr had from about '65 on.

This idea that Starr played with a completely dominating team throughout the '60s is wrong. Early they did dominate, but as they aged injuries started to play a significant factor, and the replacements were not nearly as good. At the time of the mid and late '60s, Starr was acknowledged as the key element of the offense.

This is valid, but the Packers won the Super Bowl in 1996 and would have won without an aging defense the next year. I don't think people that argue for Favre argue that in those two years Favre didn't have a good supporting cast. It's the other years.

Favre has had decent RBs. Ahman was a very good RB. Levens was a good back for a couple of years. Bennett was decent. However, he only had Keith Jackson for a couple of years. His WRs left something to be desired. Sharpe was great. Others have been solid, but playing on a different team, they likely wouldn't have put up great numbers. His OLs were only good for a few years in the early to mid 2000s. Two even bigger factors though are that Favre hasn't played with a great defense (outside of maybe a couple of years). The 1996 defense was great, but they aged dramatically by the end of 1997. He also hasn't had Vince Lombardi as his coach. Lombardi was there for all of Starr's great years. Favre has had Holmgren, Rhodes, Sherman, and McCarthy. Not exactly a Hall of Fame coach. Favre had a great GM, but FA handcuffed his ability to keep a championship team together. As evidenced by his career before and after Lombardi, it sure seems like Lombardi made a HUGE difference.

Of course, Starr can never win with the Lombardi argument. Some think Starr wasn't a top 10 or 15 QB. Some classify him as a winner, and think he's easily a top 5 QB. I tend to take the in between. I'd rate him at the edge of the top 10. He was the QB for the greatest dynasty in the last 50 years, but he did play on a great team in an era when it was much easier to create and maintain a dynasty (because there weren't as many teams and there was no FA).

For me, when I think about Baltimore and San Francisco, I think of Unitas and Montana as the biggest reasons they won. When I think about the 60s Packers, I think of Lombardi and then Starr and a great defense. That's why Lombardi's name is on the biggest trophy in pro football.

[vince]

Here's a list for Shadow...

The Definitive List (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2103_The_definitive_list%3A_Top_10_NFL_quarterb acks.html)

The 10 Best Quarterbacks of All Time [and it's a Fact]
By Kerry J. Byrne
Cold, Hard Football Facts issuer of edicts


There’s a lot of talk lately about Tom Brady’s status among the all-time greats, especially as he prepares for Super Bowl XLII, his every move hounded by the paparazzi in a way no quarterback has experienced since Broadway Joe rocked the Apple 40 years ago.

Is the New England signal-caller the best ever at his position? All the “pundits” and talking heads are asking the same question.

You will not find a bigger group of Tom Brady rump-swabs than the Cold, Hard Football Facts crew. But best ever?

Sorry folks. Not yet.

He’s definitely worked his way onto the short list, there’s no denying that fact. And he has pieced together the greatest first eight years by a quarterback in NFL history.

But let’s remember, there have been a few other fair country quarterbacks in the nearly 70 years since it evolved into the position we know it today (primary passer and signal caller).

So where does Brady rank among the best ever? The ultimate Top 10 list appears below.

Our list will differ than most others. These lists normally begin with inherent human biases and are created by people who believe John Elway invented football at Stanford in 1982. Let’s put it this way: if Dan Fouts is on a Top 10 list of best quarterbacks ever and not, say, Otto Graham or Sammy Baugh, the author is a moron.

Fortunately, the Cold, Hard Football Facts have memories as long as the trail of humiliation we suffered at the hands of the cool kids in high school. So our list spans the full breadth of the position, measuring passers in several key areas: statistical production (in the context of their era), intangibles such as leadership, impact on a team's fortunes and, of course, championships. As we've long noted, passers who play well in the postseason win games. Passers who do not play well in the postseason lose games. So, championships, particularly multiple championships, are often a pretty solid indicator of a quarterback who consistently played well in big games.

There will be bitching and moaning about who made the cut and who didn’t. But that's part of the fun of these lists, isn't it? Plus, just ask yourself – who would you pull of this list to make room for your favorite quarterback, especially considering that, if he's not on this list, he doesn't belong on this list. (Apologies to the greats who came closest to making our list: Dan Marino, Sid Luckman, Norm Van Brocklin, Terry Bradshaw, Sonny Jurgensen, Y.A. Tittle and John Elway.)

Here, then, is the list of the 10 best quarterbacks in NFL history. Keep in mind that all other lists are wrong. Only this list is correct.

10. BRETT FAVRE
(Atlanta, 1991; Green Bay, 1992-present)
Best season (1996): 325 for 543 (59.9%), 3,899 yards, 7.2 YPA, 39 TD, 13 INT, 95.8 passer rating
Career: 5,377 for 8,758 (61.4%), 61,657 yards, 7.0 YPA, 442 TD, 288 INT, 85.7 passer rating
Championships: 1996
Overview: All you need to know about Favre is this: he holds every single volume passing number in NFL history: completions, attempts, yards, TDs and even INTs.

And for a three-year period from 1995 to 1997, he played the position as well (and as excitingly) as any passer in history, tossing 112 TD passes to 42 INT.

Despite it all, he might not have even made the list if we published this back in August. He had been a mediocre (in 2000 and 2006) to even a bad quarterback (2005) over many of the past several seasons. But he responded with perhaps the greatest statistical season of his career here in 2007 – no small feat for a 38-year-old warrior who guided his young team into the NFC championship game for the first time in 10 years. Of course, shades of the “Old Yeller” Favre haunted Green Bay in that game, as he tossed a critical pick in OT that handed the Giants an easy opportunity to score the game-winning points. There have been a handful of disastrous postseason “gunslinger’ moments over the past decade – and they’re the only thing keeping Favre, the most productive passer in history, from earning a spot much higher on the list.

9. PEYTON MANNING
(Indianapolis, 1998-present)
Best season (2004): 336 for 497 (67.6%), 4,557 yards, 9.2 YPA, 49 TD, 10 INT, 121.1 passer rating
Career: 3,468 for 5,405 (64.2%), 41,626, 7.7 YPA, 306 TD, 153 INT, 94.7 passer rating
Championships: 2006
Overview: What else can you say? Manning has basically done everything faster than every quarterback in the history of football – even faster than the original QB stat monster, Dan Marino.

Here’s how their careers stack up after 10 NFL seasons:

Manning: 3,468 for 5,405 (64.2%), 41,626, 7.7 YPA, 306 TD, 153 INT, 94.7 passer rating
Marino: 3,128 for 5,284, (59.2%), 39,502, 7.5 YPA, 290 TD, 165 INT, 87.8 passer rating

Manning bests Marino in every single category at this point in their careers and, most importantly, in the efficiency categories (completion percentage, YPA, passer rating). All of which, of course, puts Manning on pace to shatter every single passing record in the history of the game. And, don’t forget, Marino played his best ball early in his career. His best season was his second. Manning continues to pick up steam. As of today, Manning has the second best career passer rating in NFL history (94.7), with record-holder Steve Young (96.8) well in his sites.

The knock on Manning has always been that he doesn’t play well in the postseason. That argument became harder to make after he picked up a Super Bowl title – and Super Bowl MVP award – last season. But save for an utterly brilliant second half against his former nemesis New England, he did struggle even during his Super Bowl-winning postseason run. It’s the only thing keeping him right now at No. 9. But the sky remains the limit for the most productive passer we’ve ever seen.

He’s also one of the great NFL ironmen: Manning has NEVER missed a game in a pro career that began a decade ago and now numbers 160 consecutive starts in 160 opportunities (174 including postseason).

A couple more brilliant seasons – and more importantly, another ring or two – and Manning could find himself at the top of the list.

8. STEVE YOUNG (Tampa Bay, 1985-86; San Francisco, 1987-99)
Best season (1994): 324 for 461, 70.3%, 3,969 yards, 8.6 YPA, 35 TD, 10 INT, 112.8 passer rating
Career: 2,667 for 4,149, 64.3, 33,124, 8.0 YPA, 232, 107, 96.8 passer rating
Championships: 1994
Overview: Young had the misfortune of playing in the shadow of Joe Cool. It makes it easy to forget that, at the height of his powers, Young may have been the most unstoppable quarterback in the history of the game.

Young led the league in passer rating an unequaled six times, including four straight seasons from 1991 to 1994, and topped the 100 passer-rating mark in all four of those seasons. Every single one of those marks are unequaled.

To put those above-100-rating seasons into perspective, modern great and future first-ballot Hall of Famer Brett Favre NEVER topped the 100 passer-rating mark. The Cold, Hard Football Facts also put a lot of stock in the easier-to-understand (and equally effective) passing yards per attempt figure. And over those four years, Young averaged 8.71 yards every time he attempted to pass. To put THAT mark in perspective – and pigskin perspective is what we’re all about – the brilliant Peyton Manning has topped 8.71 YPA in a single season just once (2004).

The period of dominance was highlighted by the greatest Super Bowl performance in history: a 67-percent, 325 yard, 6-TD, 0 INT explosion in a 49-26 victory over overwhelmed San Diego in Super Bowl XXIX.

And let’s not forget: Young was the best ballcarrier in our list of Top 10 QBs. He rushed for 43 TDs – no other QB on our list comes close – including an impressive 17 in his four-year run of dominance.

It didn’t end there: Young also led the league in passer rating in 1996 and 1997, though he played in just 12 games in 1996. The knocks against Young are well-known: he struggled early in his career, he was injured often late (he played a full 16 games just three times in 15 seasons) and won just one Super Bowl. But two potential Super Bowl titles were stymied by a dynastic Dallas team (and Young did not play poorly in those games). But over the course of the 1990s, nobody approximated Young's brilliance.

7. ROGER STAUBACH
(Dallas, 1969-79)
Best season (1971): 126 for 211 (59.7%), 1,882 yards, 8.9 YPA, 15 TD, 4 INT, 104.8 passer rating
Career: 1,685 for 2,958 (57.0%), 22,700 yards, 7.7 YPA, 153 TD, 109 INT, 83.4 passer rating
Championships: 1971, 1977
Overview: Roger the Dodger did not become a fulltime NFL quarterback until the 1971 season – at age 29! One wonders what he might have done had he not spent five years in the service after his Heisman-winning 1963 season at Navy and two years sitting behind Craig Morton in Dallas.

Finally given a chance, he quickly proved to be a player for the ages. He took a Dallas club that “couldn’t win the big game” (five crushing playoff losses in five straight seasons, including three in NFL championship games or the Super Bowl) and turned it into a champion and “America’s Team” in his first full year at the helm.

In that 1971 season he played something of a caretaker role, attempting just 211 passes for 1,882 yards, but he tossed 15 TDs to just 4 INTs, averaged an astounding 8.9 YPA and posted a passer rating of 104.8, the second highest of the Dead Ball Era. It’s a truly remarkable number considering the season in which he did it. The league-wide passer rating in 1971 was just 62.2 – the second-lowest league-wide rating since 1956. Staubach shattered the standards of the era in his first full year playing NFL football – or football of any kind since 1963.

He also ended the 1971 season with an MVP performance in Super Bowl VI (a dominating 24-3 win over the Dolphins, who would not lose again until 1973) while placing himself high up on the pigskin pantheon of heroes who have defined America’s Team.

Staubach wasn’t quite done: he added passer-rating titles in 1973, 1978 and 1979, and another Super Bowl title in 1977. He’s one Jackie Smith dropped pass away from a third championship ring – in a game which might have earned Staubach and the Cowboys, not the Steelers, the title of team of the decade in the 1970s.

He also was a great scrambler and ballcarrier who rushed for 20 scores and 2,264 yards on 410 attempts. Most impressive: he played all but two years of his career in the depths of the Dead Ball Era, yet still racked up a career passer rating of 83.4 – No. 1 all time among pre-1980 quarterbacks.

Not bad for a guy who spent five years in the Navy during Vietnam.

6. JOHNNY UNITAS
(Baltimore Colts, 1956-72; San Diego, 1973)
Best season (1959): 193 for 367 (52.6%), 2,899 yards, 7.9 YPA, 32 TD, 14 INT, 92.0 passer rating
Career: 2,830 for 5,186 (54.6%), 40,239 yards, 7.8 YPA, 290 TD, 253 TD, 78.2 passer rating
Championships: 1958, 1959, 1970
Overview: Remember George Shaw? No?

Blame Johnny Unitas, a name that reeks of leathery, blood-and-spittle football lore. Shaw was the Wally Pipp to Johnny U’s Lou Gehrig; or, more appropriately for the gridiron-inclined, the Drew Bledsoe to Johnny’s U’s Tom Brady.

Shaw was Baltimore’s stud first-round draft pick in 1955 – the upstart organization’s quarterback of the future. Unitas was Pittsburgh’s unheralded 9th-round draft pick that same year, cut by the lowly Steelers in training camp and then acquired by Baltimore off the Pittsburgh semi-pro sandlot circuit the following season as some cheap insurance behind Shaw.

The starter Shaw went down with a broken leg early in the 1956 season. In stepped Unitas. The rest, as they say, is legendary.

In 1957, his first full NFL campaign, Unitas pieced together one of the era’s greatest passing seasons (24 TD, 8.5 YPA, 88.0 passer rating). He followed it with an even more effective season in 1958 – a season that ended with Unitas leading the first-ever overtime drive and walking off victorious in what may be the single-most important game in league history, Baltimore’s 23-17 win over the Giants at Yankee Stadium.

Johnny U. wasn’t quite done. His 1959 season was one for the ages – a truly remarkable 32 TD passes (to just 14 INTs) in a 12-game season, and a 92.0 passer rating. His 32 TD passes shattered Sid Luckman’s 1943 record by four.

The name Unitas is often the first that comes to mind when fans are asked to name the best quarterback of all-time. Sports Illustrated dubbed him the best ever in its cover-story tribute following his death in 2002.

So why don’t the Cold, Hard Football Facts rate him higher? Well, Unitas is certainly one of the best ever. And he had his greatest seasons early in his career, earning him a reputation as a clutch big-game QB throughout his career. But he never had a great postseason game after 1959 and, as you’ll see, was clearly the second best quarterback of the 1960s. He also had the benefit of spending his career surrounded by Hall of Famers (seven, in fact), including players destined for Canton at tackle, wide receiver, tight end and running back, and while playing for two Hall of Fame coaches (Weeb Ewbank and Don Shula).

But at the peak of his game – especially early in his career – few could hold a candle to the legend of Johnny U.

5. TOM BRADY
(New England, 2000-present)
Best season (2007): 398 for 578 (68.9%), 4,806 yards, 8.3 YPA, 50 TD, 8 INT, 117.2 passer rating
Career: 2,294 for 3,642 (63.0%), 26,370 yards, 7.2 YPA, 197 TD, 86 INT, 92.9 passer rating
Championships: 2001, 2003, 2004
Overview: Overrated? Probably not. Consider that some “pundits” are already poised to proclaim Brady the best ever (perhaps pending the outcome of Super Bowl XLII next week). Also consider this: no individual in pro football history has had a greater impact on one team’s fortunes than Brady has had on the fortunes of the Patriots.
Bill Belichick was 42-58 as a head coach before Brady. He’s 100-26 since.
The Patriots organization won just 98 football games in the 14 seasons from 1987 to 2000. They’ve won 100 in the seven years since.
The Patriots won seven postseason games in the 41 seasons from 1960 to 2000. They’ve won 14 postseason games in the seven years since.
The Patriots did not win a single championship in their first 41 seasons. They’re on the verge of their fourth in the past seven seasons.
The organization fortunes lit up like a air-raid klieg light the day Brady stepped on the field. Suffice it to say, Brady’s first six years in the NFL were incredibly eventful: three Super Bowl championships, two Super Bowl MVP awards, a record 21-game win streak, a TD passing title (28 in 2002, his first full season as a starter) and a passing yardage title (4,110 in 2005).

And then came 2007, in what could go down as the season by which all others will be measured: a record 50 TD passes (to just 8 picks), 4,860 yards, third most all time, 117.2 passer rating, second best all time, and, of course, the chance to become the first quarterback to lead a team to a 19-0 record. There’s been no season in history that combined raw, dizzying numbers with the ultimate stat: victories.

And, after eight years in the NFL, there’s been no career in history that combined raw, dizzying numbers with the ultimate stat. Brady’s career passer rating of 92.9 is the fourth-best in history, and he's the only cold-weather quarterback anywhere near the top. He’s rapidly climbing up the statistical charts in every area, and his 100-26 (.794) record as a starter is unmatched.

There’s also been one clutch fourth-quarter performance after another, almost single-handedly capturing victory from what appeared to be certain defeat time and again. Brady, like Manning, has the potential to move high up the list. And matching Joe Montana’s four titles and winning them in just eight years in the NFL (it took Montana 11 seasons) will make it hard to keep Brady out of the No. 1 spot. He's clearly on pace to one day make that claim.

4. OTTO GRAHAM
(Cleveland 1946-55)
Best NFL season (1953): 167 for 258 (64.7%), 2,722 yards, 10.6 YPA, 11 TD, 9 INT, 99.7 passer rating
Career (includes AAFC career): 1,464 for 2,626 (55.8%), 23,584 yards, 9.0 YPA, 174 TD, 135 INT, 86.6 passer rating
Championships: AAFC 1946-49; NFL 1950, 1954, 1955
Overview: Otto Graham was Tom Brady before Tom Brady, putting up gaudy numbers for his time while winning games and championships at an unprecedented rate. He led the Browns to a championship in all four years of the AAFC’s existence (1946-49). But he and the Browns proved they belonged in the big leagues by capturing the NFL title in their first year in the league.

In fact, they’d go on to set a record that still stands, appearing in six straight NFL championship games from 1950 to 1955, winning three of them. Bottom line: Graham played in a pro football championship game every single season of his 10-year career, winning seven of them in two different leagues.

He also set passing marks that stood for decades. His 86.6 passer rating, for example, is the top mark of the pre-Live Ball Era. And his career 9.0 YPA is No. 1 by a sizable margin.

So why, then, isn’t Graham higher on the list?

His four years in the AAFC make for some awkward comparisons. There’s every reason to believe the Browns would have been a dominant NFL team over those four years, but little reason to believe they would have won four straight championships. Graham’s numbers also declined pretty noticeably when he went to the NFL, from simply unbelievable to merely spectacular. His career 9.0 YPA average, for example, drops to 8.63 if we look only at his NFL numbers. Of course, that 8.63 YPA mark is the best in NFL history, too.

The full measure of Graham’s impact is this: the organization has never recovered from his departure at the end of the 1955 season. Sure, they remained competitive through the Jim Brown years (1957-65), winning a championship in 1964.

But that’s the only championship the organization won since Graham last took a snap for the Browns.

3. SAMMY BAUGH
(Washington, 1937-52)
Best season (1945): 128 for 182 (70.3%), 1,669 yards, 9.2 YPA, 11 TD, 4 INT, 109.9 passer rating
Career: 1,693 for 2,995 (56.5%), 21,886 yards, 7.3 YPA, 187 TD, 203 INT, 72.2 passer rating
Championships: 1937, 1942
Overview: Here’s a little rule of thumb: if you ever see a list of greatest quarterbacks (or greatest players, period) that doesn’t include the Pigskin Messiah, burn the author of said heresy at the stake. Seriously. Public execution.

We paid Baugh the ultimate compliment two years ago when we named him the quarterback of our peerless All-Time 11. We even listed his 1945 campaign as one of the greatest Old School seasons in NFL history a couple weeks ago.

You could make an argument that he’s the best athlete in NFL history (we’re not making the argument here, but you could). He certainly can stake a claim as the most accomplished two-way player in the history of the game. He was a devastating defensive back (31 career picks) and still stands as one of the most spectacular punters in the history of the game – as evidenced by his tremendous 45.1 career punting average, second only to Oakland’s current punter Shane Lechler.

But we’re talking quarterbacks here, and even at that position, few were as good as the man they called Slingin’ Sammy. He virtually invented the modern quarterbacking position, and put up performances that continue to stand the statistical test of time. (For the record, while researching the 1942 NFL championship game between the Redskins and Bears, Baugh was actually listed as a “left halfback” in the papers. But he’s really one of the first players we’d identify as a passer, as the nickname Slingin’ Sammy suggests).

His 70.3 completion percentage in 1945 has been surpassed just once (by Ken Anderson, in 1982), and his 109.9 passer rating that season stood as the second-best in league history until Joe Montana surpassed it in 1989. How impressive is that? Consider that the league-wide passer rating in 1945 was just 47.4 – Baugh more than doubled the league-wide mark!

We can only imagine what kind of numbers the Pigskin Messiah might have produced had he played only offense today, in an era that favored passers.

Baugh was also a two-time champion who led the greatest upset in NFL history. In the 1942 title game, his Redskins toppled the undefeated Bears, 14-6. Keep in mind that the 1942 Bears are the only club in history more dominant over the course of an entire season than the 2007 Patriots.

Are you listening, Eli?

2. JOE MONTANA
(San Francisco, 1979-92; Kansas City, 1993-94)
Best season (1989): 271 for 386 (70.2%), 3,521 yards, 9.12 YPA, 26 TD, 8 INT, 112.4 passer rating
Career: 3,409 for 5,391 (63.2%), 40,551 yards, 7.52 YPA, 273 TD, 139 INT, 92.3 passer rating
Championships: 1981, 1984, 1988, 1989
Overview: Sammy Baugh invented the position we know as quarterback today; performers like Johnny Unitas proved how deadly the forward pass could be. Montana gave the position the technical wizardry that defines it today, tearing apart defenses with a computer-chip brain and nerves of ice connected to a pinpoint passing arm that shredded defenses like Enron balance sheets.

Before Montana, passers attempted to stretch out defenses and beat them over the top. Montana, in perfect tandem with Paul Brown-bred offensive wizard Bill Walsh, attacked their under-protected flanks and soft underbelly. Coupled with a once-a-generation “It” factor that manifested itself in extreme poise under extreme pressure, and you have a quarterback many argue is the best of all time.

In the Super Bowl Era, it’s certainly hard to find a peer. Montana won four Super Bowl titles, an unmatched three Super Bowl MVP awards and stands as the undisputed king of Super Bowl quarterbacks, as evidenced by his staggering 127.8 passer rating in four apperances in the spotlight game in North American sports.

And, in a manner befitting a legend, he orchestrated one of the most spectacular drives in NFL history – an edge-of-the-seat 92-yard drive in Super Bowl XXIII that Cincinnati appeared helpless to stop (aided by a dropped INT) and that he capped with a 10-yard thread-through-a-needle TD pass to John Taylor with 34 seconds remaining.

In his spectacular 1989 season, he completed 70.2 percent of his passes for 3,521 yards and 26 TDs, to just 8 INTs. His 112.4 passer rating that season stood as the best of all time until surpassed by Peyton Manning in 2004. His career 92.3 passer rating remains No. 5 in NFL history, just 0.6 points behind his statistical alter-ego, Tom Brady.

1. BART STARR
(Green Bay, 1956-71)
Best season (1966): 156 for 251 (62.2%), 2,257 yards, 9.0 YPA, 14 TD, 3 INT, 105.0 passer rating
Career: 1,808 for 3,149 (57.4%), 24,718 yards, 7.8 YPA, 152 TD, 138 INT, 80.5 passer rating
Championships: 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967
Overview: That’s right. Bart Starr. The greatest quarterback in the history of the game.

Sit down and take notes:

History has done a grave disservice to the legacy of Starr, the 17th-round draft pick out of pre-Bear Bryant Alabama who turned into the most clutch and most cruelly efficient passing assassin of his or any other generation.

History remembers Starr’s legendary coach, and the bevy of Hall of Fame talent that surrounded him. It forgets that Starr was Lombardi’s second in command, a tremendous big-game performer, and that the Packers of the 1960s would have been just another team without the prolific Starr as their beloved on-field leader. Instead, they won five NFL championships, with Starr at the helm of every single one of those title teams, while he crafted an NFL-record 9-1 postseason mark. The rings say it all: Starr is the only quarterback in history who has one for every finger on his throwing hand.

And even if you listen to teammates today, they make it pretty clear that they would have fallen on a grenade for Starr. Leadership is an elemental piece of quarterbacking – probably more important than gaudy passing stats. And that love his teammates had for their field general is an incredible sign of his leadership.

But forget, for a moment, the team accomplishments and the “intangibles” of leadership.

If you want to talk passing and statistics, we’ll put Starr up against anybody. Anybody.

He led the NFL in passer rating five times. Johnny Unitas led the league in passer rating just twice. Ditto Joe Montana. Only Steve Young surpassed Starr’s mark (six).

And, lest we forget, Starr was the best postseason passer in NFL history, as evidenced by his record 104.8 playoff passer rating and 1.41 percent interception rate, also a postseason record (CHFF readers are well aware of the importance of not throwing picks in the playoffs). Starr played in an era when 80 was a decent passer rating. Yet he still performed more efficiently in the playoffs than folks such as Montana, Brady, Manning, Marino, Young and … well, anybody, ever.

There’s a cause and effect here, folks: NFL’s greatest dynasty, only winners of three-straight title games, and a record 9-1 postseason mark. And there, underlying it all, is Starr with his postseason passing records. The two are intricately intertwined.

History also remembers Starr’s Packers as a great running team, and that’s certainly true of their earlier years. But the truth is that they typically passed the ball more effectively than they ran it, especially during their run of three straight, when they were a below-average running team.

In their 1965 championship season, the Packers were 11th in the 14-team league with an average of 3.4 yards per rushing attempt. They were second in the league, with an average of 8.2 yards per passing attempt.

In their 1966 championship season, the Packers were 14th in the 15-team league, with an average of 3.5 yards per rushing attempt. They were first in the league, with an average of 8.9 yards per passing attempt.

In their 1967 championship season, the Packers were 4th in the 16-team league, with an average of 4.0 yards per rushing attempt. They were first in the league, with an average of 8.3 yards per passing attempt (Starr himself that season averaged 8.7 YPA).

Starr averaged a remarkable 7.85 YPA over the course of his entire career, the 8th-best mark in history, and better than that of a slate of quarterbacks who are generally regarded as the best passers in history, including Dan Marino (7.37), Joe Montana (7.52), Roger Staubach (7.67), Dan Fouts (7.68), Sonny Jurgensen (7.56), Fran Tarkenton (7.27), Y.A. Tittle (7.52), Terry Bradshaw (7.17) and Joe Namath (7.35).

Six times in the 1960s, Starr surpassed 8.2 YPA for a season. To put that into context, Peyton Manning has surpassed 8.2 YPA just twice in his brilliant 10-year career.

And, if you want drama, don’t forget that Starr scored the winning TD in the Ice Bowl, probably the most famous game in NFL history. Sure, Montana led his team 92 yards for the game-winning score in Super Bowl XXIII. But he did it on a 68-degree night in Miami. Turn down the thermostat by 86 degrees (it was 18-below in the fourth quarter of the Ice Bowl) and you begin to approximate the conditions under which the greatest quarterback in NFL history operated during his greatest moment in the sport’s greatest game.

And Starr was brilliant on that drive, in the decisive moments of the sport’s most famous game: he completed 5 of 5 passes in ball-busting cold, and then called a run play for the winning score. But instead of handing it off, he decided in his mind, without telling his teammates, that he was going to punch it in himself. It was only fitting: the game’s greatest signal-caller taking matters into his own hands in the sport’s signature moment.

To cap his career achievements, Starr earned MVP honors in the first two Super Bowls after shredding the best the AFL could throw his way for 452 yards on 47 passing attempts (9.6 YPA). Among those victims were the 1967 Raiders, perhaps the AFL's greatest single team. He posted a combined 106.0 passer rating in those two games. If you think it was no small feat to beat up on "upstart" AFL teams, just look at how NFL quarterbacks fared in Super Bowls III and IV. (Here's a hint: they were embarrassed.)

When it comes to a combination of leadership, victories, big-game performances and statistical supremacy nobody – NOBODY – put together a more total package than Bart Starr, the greatest quarterback in NFL history.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Anybody that lists Steve Young ahead of Brett Favre loses all credibility with me.

[The Shadow]

Here's a list for Shadow...

The Definitive List (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2103_The_definitive_list%3A_Top_10_NFL_quarterb acks.html)

The 10 Best Quarterbacks of All Time [and it's a Fact]
By Kerry J. Byrne
Cold, Hard Football Facts issuer of edicts


There’s a lot of talk lately about Tom Brady’s status among the all-time greats, especially as he prepares for Super Bowl XLII, his every move hounded by the paparazzi in a way no quarterback has experienced since Broadway Joe rocked the Apple 40 years ago.

Is the New England signal-caller the best ever at his position? All the “pundits” and talking heads are asking the same question.

You will not find a bigger group of Tom Brady rump-swabs than the Cold, Hard Football Facts crew. But best ever?

Sorry folks. Not yet.

He’s definitely worked his way onto the short list, there’s no denying that fact. And he has pieced together the greatest first eight years by a quarterback in NFL history.

But let’s remember, there have been a few other fair country quarterbacks in the nearly 70 years since it evolved into the position we know it today (primary passer and signal caller).

So where does Brady rank among the best ever? The ultimate Top 10 list appears below.

Our list will differ than most others. These lists normally begin with inherent human biases and are created by people who believe John Elway invented football at Stanford in 1982. Let’s put it this way: if Dan Fouts is on a Top 10 list of best quarterbacks ever and not, say, Otto Graham or Sammy Baugh, the author is a moron.

Fortunately, the Cold, Hard Football Facts have memories as long as the trail of humiliation we suffered at the hands of the cool kids in high school. So our list spans the full breadth of the position, measuring passers in several key areas: statistical production (in the context of their era), intangibles such as leadership, impact on a team's fortunes and, of course, championships. As we've long noted, passers who play well in the postseason win games. Passers who do not play well in the postseason lose games. So, championships, particularly multiple championships, are often a pretty solid indicator of a quarterback who consistently played well in big games.

There will be bitching and moaning about who made the cut and who didn’t. But that's part of the fun of these lists, isn't it? Plus, just ask yourself – who would you pull of this list to make room for your favorite quarterback, especially considering that, if he's not on this list, he doesn't belong on this list. (Apologies to the greats who came closest to making our list: Dan Marino, Sid Luckman, Norm Van Brocklin, Terry Bradshaw, Sonny Jurgensen, Y.A. Tittle and John Elway.)

Here, then, is the list of the 10 best quarterbacks in NFL history. Keep in mind that all other lists are wrong. Only this list is correct.

10. BRETT FAVRE
(Atlanta, 1991; Green Bay, 1992-present)
Best season (1996): 325 for 543 (59.9%), 3,899 yards, 7.2 YPA, 39 TD, 13 INT, 95.8 passer rating
Career: 5,377 for 8,758 (61.4%), 61,657 yards, 7.0 YPA, 442 TD, 288 INT, 85.7 passer rating
Championships: 1996
Overview: All you need to know about Favre is this: he holds every single volume passing number in NFL history: completions, attempts, yards, TDs and even INTs.

And for a three-year period from 1995 to 1997, he played the position as well (and as excitingly) as any passer in history, tossing 112 TD passes to 42 INT.

Despite it all, he might not have even made the list if we published this back in August. He had been a mediocre (in 2000 and 2006) to even a bad quarterback (2005) over many of the past several seasons. But he responded with perhaps the greatest statistical season of his career here in 2007 – no small feat for a 38-year-old warrior who guided his young team into the NFC championship game for the first time in 10 years. Of course, shades of the “Old Yeller” Favre haunted Green Bay in that game, as he tossed a critical pick in OT that handed the Giants an easy opportunity to score the game-winning points. There have been a handful of disastrous postseason “gunslinger’ moments over the past decade – and they’re the only thing keeping Favre, the most productive passer in history, from earning a spot much higher on the list.

9. PEYTON MANNING
(Indianapolis, 1998-present)
Best season (2004): 336 for 497 (67.6%), 4,557 yards, 9.2 YPA, 49 TD, 10 INT, 121.1 passer rating
Career: 3,468 for 5,405 (64.2%), 41,626, 7.7 YPA, 306 TD, 153 INT, 94.7 passer rating
Championships: 2006
Overview: What else can you say? Manning has basically done everything faster than every quarterback in the history of football – even faster than the original QB stat monster, Dan Marino.

Here’s how their careers stack up after 10 NFL seasons:

Manning: 3,468 for 5,405 (64.2%), 41,626, 7.7 YPA, 306 TD, 153 INT, 94.7 passer rating
Marino: 3,128 for 5,284, (59.2%), 39,502, 7.5 YPA, 290 TD, 165 INT, 87.8 passer rating

Manning bests Marino in every single category at this point in their careers and, most importantly, in the efficiency categories (completion percentage, YPA, passer rating). All of which, of course, puts Manning on pace to shatter every single passing record in the history of the game. And, don’t forget, Marino played his best ball early in his career. His best season was his second. Manning continues to pick up steam. As of today, Manning has the second best career passer rating in NFL history (94.7), with record-holder Steve Young (96.8) well in his sites.

The knock on Manning has always been that he doesn’t play well in the postseason. That argument became harder to make after he picked up a Super Bowl title – and Super Bowl MVP award – last season. But save for an utterly brilliant second half against his former nemesis New England, he did struggle even during his Super Bowl-winning postseason run. It’s the only thing keeping him right now at No. 9. But the sky remains the limit for the most productive passer we’ve ever seen.

He’s also one of the great NFL ironmen: Manning has NEVER missed a game in a pro career that began a decade ago and now numbers 160 consecutive starts in 160 opportunities (174 including postseason).

A couple more brilliant seasons – and more importantly, another ring or two – and Manning could find himself at the top of the list.

8. STEVE YOUNG (Tampa Bay, 1985-86; San Francisco, 1987-99)
Best season (1994): 324 for 461, 70.3%, 3,969 yards, 8.6 YPA, 35 TD, 10 INT, 112.8 passer rating
Career: 2,667 for 4,149, 64.3, 33,124, 8.0 YPA, 232, 107, 96.8 passer rating
Championships: 1994
Overview: Young had the misfortune of playing in the shadow of Joe Cool. It makes it easy to forget that, at the height of his powers, Young may have been the most unstoppable quarterback in the history of the game.

Young led the league in passer rating an unequaled six times, including four straight seasons from 1991 to 1994, and topped the 100 passer-rating mark in all four of those seasons. Every single one of those marks are unequaled.

To put those above-100-rating seasons into perspective, modern great and future first-ballot Hall of Famer Brett Favre NEVER topped the 100 passer-rating mark. The Cold, Hard Football Facts also put a lot of stock in the easier-to-understand (and equally effective) passing yards per attempt figure. And over those four years, Young averaged 8.71 yards every time he attempted to pass. To put THAT mark in perspective – and pigskin perspective is what we’re all about – the brilliant Peyton Manning has topped 8.71 YPA in a single season just once (2004).

The period of dominance was highlighted by the greatest Super Bowl performance in history: a 67-percent, 325 yard, 6-TD, 0 INT explosion in a 49-26 victory over overwhelmed San Diego in Super Bowl XXIX.

And let’s not forget: Young was the best ballcarrier in our list of Top 10 QBs. He rushed for 43 TDs – no other QB on our list comes close – including an impressive 17 in his four-year run of dominance.

It didn’t end there: Young also led the league in passer rating in 1996 and 1997, though he played in just 12 games in 1996. The knocks against Young are well-known: he struggled early in his career, he was injured often late (he played a full 16 games just three times in 15 seasons) and won just one Super Bowl. But two potential Super Bowl titles were stymied by a dynastic Dallas team (and Young did not play poorly in those games). But over the course of the 1990s, nobody approximated Young's brilliance.

7. ROGER STAUBACH
(Dallas, 1969-79)
Best season (1971): 126 for 211 (59.7%), 1,882 yards, 8.9 YPA, 15 TD, 4 INT, 104.8 passer rating
Career: 1,685 for 2,958 (57.0%), 22,700 yards, 7.7 YPA, 153 TD, 109 INT, 83.4 passer rating
Championships: 1971, 1977
Overview: Roger the Dodger did not become a fulltime NFL quarterback until the 1971 season – at age 29! One wonders what he might have done had he not spent five years in the service after his Heisman-winning 1963 season at Navy and two years sitting behind Craig Morton in Dallas.

Finally given a chance, he quickly proved to be a player for the ages. He took a Dallas club that “couldn’t win the big game” (five crushing playoff losses in five straight seasons, including three in NFL championship games or the Super Bowl) and turned it into a champion and “America’s Team” in his first full year at the helm.

In that 1971 season he played something of a caretaker role, attempting just 211 passes for 1,882 yards, but he tossed 15 TDs to just 4 INTs, averaged an astounding 8.9 YPA and posted a passer rating of 104.8, the second highest of the Dead Ball Era. It’s a truly remarkable number considering the season in which he did it. The league-wide passer rating in 1971 was just 62.2 – the second-lowest league-wide rating since 1956. Staubach shattered the standards of the era in his first full year playing NFL football – or football of any kind since 1963.

He also ended the 1971 season with an MVP performance in Super Bowl VI (a dominating 24-3 win over the Dolphins, who would not lose again until 1973) while placing himself high up on the pigskin pantheon of heroes who have defined America’s Team.

Staubach wasn’t quite done: he added passer-rating titles in 1973, 1978 and 1979, and another Super Bowl title in 1977. He’s one Jackie Smith dropped pass away from a third championship ring – in a game which might have earned Staubach and the Cowboys, not the Steelers, the title of team of the decade in the 1970s.

He also was a great scrambler and ballcarrier who rushed for 20 scores and 2,264 yards on 410 attempts. Most impressive: he played all but two years of his career in the depths of the Dead Ball Era, yet still racked up a career passer rating of 83.4 – No. 1 all time among pre-1980 quarterbacks.

Not bad for a guy who spent five years in the Navy during Vietnam.

6. JOHNNY UNITAS
(Baltimore Colts, 1956-72; San Diego, 1973)
Best season (1959): 193 for 367 (52.6%), 2,899 yards, 7.9 YPA, 32 TD, 14 INT, 92.0 passer rating
Career: 2,830 for 5,186 (54.6%), 40,239 yards, 7.8 YPA, 290 TD, 253 TD, 78.2 passer rating
Championships: 1958, 1959, 1970
Overview: Remember George Shaw? No?

Blame Johnny Unitas, a name that reeks of leathery, blood-and-spittle football lore. Shaw was the Wally Pipp to Johnny U’s Lou Gehrig; or, more appropriately for the gridiron-inclined, the Drew Bledsoe to Johnny’s U’s Tom Brady.

Shaw was Baltimore’s stud first-round draft pick in 1955 – the upstart organization’s quarterback of the future. Unitas was Pittsburgh’s unheralded 9th-round draft pick that same year, cut by the lowly Steelers in training camp and then acquired by Baltimore off the Pittsburgh semi-pro sandlot circuit the following season as some cheap insurance behind Shaw.

The starter Shaw went down with a broken leg early in the 1956 season. In stepped Unitas. The rest, as they say, is legendary.

In 1957, his first full NFL campaign, Unitas pieced together one of the era’s greatest passing seasons (24 TD, 8.5 YPA, 88.0 passer rating). He followed it with an even more effective season in 1958 – a season that ended with Unitas leading the first-ever overtime drive and walking off victorious in what may be the single-most important game in league history, Baltimore’s 23-17 win over the Giants at Yankee Stadium.

Johnny U. wasn’t quite done. His 1959 season was one for the ages – a truly remarkable 32 TD passes (to just 14 INTs) in a 12-game season, and a 92.0 passer rating. His 32 TD passes shattered Sid Luckman’s 1943 record by four.

The name Unitas is often the first that comes to mind when fans are asked to name the best quarterback of all-time. Sports Illustrated dubbed him the best ever in its cover-story tribute following his death in 2002.

So why don’t the Cold, Hard Football Facts rate him higher? Well, Unitas is certainly one of the best ever. And he had his greatest seasons early in his career, earning him a reputation as a clutch big-game QB throughout his career. But he never had a great postseason game after 1959 and, as you’ll see, was clearly the second best quarterback of the 1960s. He also had the benefit of spending his career surrounded by Hall of Famers (seven, in fact), including players destined for Canton at tackle, wide receiver, tight end and running back, and while playing for two Hall of Fame coaches (Weeb Ewbank and Don Shula).

But at the peak of his game – especially early in his career – few could hold a candle to the legend of Johnny U.

5. TOM BRADY
(New England, 2000-present)
Best season (2007): 398 for 578 (68.9%), 4,806 yards, 8.3 YPA, 50 TD, 8 INT, 117.2 passer rating
Career: 2,294 for 3,642 (63.0%), 26,370 yards, 7.2 YPA, 197 TD, 86 INT, 92.9 passer rating
Championships: 2001, 2003, 2004
Overview: Overrated? Probably not. Consider that some “pundits” are already poised to proclaim Brady the best ever (perhaps pending the outcome of Super Bowl XLII next week). Also consider this: no individual in pro football history has had a greater impact on one team’s fortunes than Brady has had on the fortunes of the Patriots.
Bill Belichick was 42-58 as a head coach before Brady. He’s 100-26 since.
The Patriots organization won just 98 football games in the 14 seasons from 1987 to 2000. They’ve won 100 in the seven years since.
The Patriots won seven postseason games in the 41 seasons from 1960 to 2000. They’ve won 14 postseason games in the seven years since.
The Patriots did not win a single championship in their first 41 seasons. They’re on the verge of their fourth in the past seven seasons.
The organization fortunes lit up like a air-raid klieg light the day Brady stepped on the field. Suffice it to say, Brady’s first six years in the NFL were incredibly eventful: three Super Bowl championships, two Super Bowl MVP awards, a record 21-game win streak, a TD passing title (28 in 2002, his first full season as a starter) and a passing yardage title (4,110 in 2005).

And then came 2007, in what could go down as the season by which all others will be measured: a record 50 TD passes (to just 8 picks), 4,860 yards, third most all time, 117.2 passer rating, second best all time, and, of course, the chance to become the first quarterback to lead a team to a 19-0 record. There’s been no season in history that combined raw, dizzying numbers with the ultimate stat: victories.

And, after eight years in the NFL, there’s been no career in history that combined raw, dizzying numbers with the ultimate stat. Brady’s career passer rating of 92.9 is the fourth-best in history, and he's the only cold-weather quarterback anywhere near the top. He’s rapidly climbing up the statistical charts in every area, and his 100-26 (.794) record as a starter is unmatched.

There’s also been one clutch fourth-quarter performance after another, almost single-handedly capturing victory from what appeared to be certain defeat time and again. Brady, like Manning, has the potential to move high up the list. And matching Joe Montana’s four titles and winning them in just eight years in the NFL (it took Montana 11 seasons) will make it hard to keep Brady out of the No. 1 spot. He's clearly on pace to one day make that claim.

4. OTTO GRAHAM
(Cleveland 1946-55)
Best NFL season (1953): 167 for 258 (64.7%), 2,722 yards, 10.6 YPA, 11 TD, 9 INT, 99.7 passer rating
Career (includes AAFC career): 1,464 for 2,626 (55.8%), 23,584 yards, 9.0 YPA, 174 TD, 135 INT, 86.6 passer rating
Championships: AAFC 1946-49; NFL 1950, 1954, 1955
Overview: Otto Graham was Tom Brady before Tom Brady, putting up gaudy numbers for his time while winning games and championships at an unprecedented rate. He led the Browns to a championship in all four years of the AAFC’s existence (1946-49). But he and the Browns proved they belonged in the big leagues by capturing the NFL title in their first year in the league.

In fact, they’d go on to set a record that still stands, appearing in six straight NFL championship games from 1950 to 1955, winning three of them. Bottom line: Graham played in a pro football championship game every single season of his 10-year career, winning seven of them in two different leagues.

He also set passing marks that stood for decades. His 86.6 passer rating, for example, is the top mark of the pre-Live Ball Era. And his career 9.0 YPA is No. 1 by a sizable margin.

So why, then, isn’t Graham higher on the list?

His four years in the AAFC make for some awkward comparisons. There’s every reason to believe the Browns would have been a dominant NFL team over those four years, but little reason to believe they would have won four straight championships. Graham’s numbers also declined pretty noticeably when he went to the NFL, from simply unbelievable to merely spectacular. His career 9.0 YPA average, for example, drops to 8.63 if we look only at his NFL numbers. Of course, that 8.63 YPA mark is the best in NFL history, too.

The full measure of Graham’s impact is this: the organization has never recovered from his departure at the end of the 1955 season. Sure, they remained competitive through the Jim Brown years (1957-65), winning a championship in 1964.

But that’s the only championship the organization won since Graham last took a snap for the Browns.

3. SAMMY BAUGH
(Washington, 1937-52)
Best season (1945): 128 for 182 (70.3%), 1,669 yards, 9.2 YPA, 11 TD, 4 INT, 109.9 passer rating
Career: 1,693 for 2,995 (56.5%), 21,886 yards, 7.3 YPA, 187 TD, 203 INT, 72.2 passer rating
Championships: 1937, 1942
Overview: Here’s a little rule of thumb: if you ever see a list of greatest quarterbacks (or greatest players, period) that doesn’t include the Pigskin Messiah, burn the author of said heresy at the stake. Seriously. Public execution.

We paid Baugh the ultimate compliment two years ago when we named him the quarterback of our peerless All-Time 11. We even listed his 1945 campaign as one of the greatest Old School seasons in NFL history a couple weeks ago.

You could make an argument that he’s the best athlete in NFL history (we’re not making the argument here, but you could). He certainly can stake a claim as the most accomplished two-way player in the history of the game. He was a devastating defensive back (31 career picks) and still stands as one of the most spectacular punters in the history of the game – as evidenced by his tremendous 45.1 career punting average, second only to Oakland’s current punter Shane Lechler.

But we’re talking quarterbacks here, and even at that position, few were as good as the man they called Slingin’ Sammy. He virtually invented the modern quarterbacking position, and put up performances that continue to stand the statistical test of time. (For the record, while researching the 1942 NFL championship game between the Redskins and Bears, Baugh was actually listed as a “left halfback” in the papers. But he’s really one of the first players we’d identify as a passer, as the nickname Slingin’ Sammy suggests).

His 70.3 completion percentage in 1945 has been surpassed just once (by Ken Anderson, in 1982), and his 109.9 passer rating that season stood as the second-best in league history until Joe Montana surpassed it in 1989. How impressive is that? Consider that the league-wide passer rating in 1945 was just 47.4 – Baugh more than doubled the league-wide mark!

We can only imagine what kind of numbers the Pigskin Messiah might have produced had he played only offense today, in an era that favored passers.

Baugh was also a two-time champion who led the greatest upset in NFL history. In the 1942 title game, his Redskins toppled the undefeated Bears, 14-6. Keep in mind that the 1942 Bears are the only club in history more dominant over the course of an entire season than the 2007 Patriots.

Are you listening, Eli?

2. JOE MONTANA
(San Francisco, 1979-92; Kansas City, 1993-94)
Best season (1989): 271 for 386 (70.2%), 3,521 yards, 9.12 YPA, 26 TD, 8 INT, 112.4 passer rating
Career: 3,409 for 5,391 (63.2%), 40,551 yards, 7.52 YPA, 273 TD, 139 INT, 92.3 passer rating
Championships: 1981, 1984, 1988, 1989
Overview: Sammy Baugh invented the position we know as quarterback today; performers like Johnny Unitas proved how deadly the forward pass could be. Montana gave the position the technical wizardry that defines it today, tearing apart defenses with a computer-chip brain and nerves of ice connected to a pinpoint passing arm that shredded defenses like Enron balance sheets.

Before Montana, passers attempted to stretch out defenses and beat them over the top. Montana, in perfect tandem with Paul Brown-bred offensive wizard Bill Walsh, attacked their under-protected flanks and soft underbelly. Coupled with a once-a-generation “It” factor that manifested itself in extreme poise under extreme pressure, and you have a quarterback many argue is the best of all time.

In the Super Bowl Era, it’s certainly hard to find a peer. Montana won four Super Bowl titles, an unmatched three Super Bowl MVP awards and stands as the undisputed king of Super Bowl quarterbacks, as evidenced by his staggering 127.8 passer rating in four apperances in the spotlight game in North American sports.

And, in a manner befitting a legend, he orchestrated one of the most spectacular drives in NFL history – an edge-of-the-seat 92-yard drive in Super Bowl XXIII that Cincinnati appeared helpless to stop (aided by a dropped INT) and that he capped with a 10-yard thread-through-a-needle TD pass to John Taylor with 34 seconds remaining.

In his spectacular 1989 season, he completed 70.2 percent of his passes for 3,521 yards and 26 TDs, to just 8 INTs. His 112.4 passer rating that season stood as the best of all time until surpassed by Peyton Manning in 2004. His career 92.3 passer rating remains No. 5 in NFL history, just 0.6 points behind his statistical alter-ego, Tom Brady.

1. BART STARR
(Green Bay, 1956-71)
Best season (1966): 156 for 251 (62.2%), 2,257 yards, 9.0 YPA, 14 TD, 3 INT, 105.0 passer rating
Career: 1,808 for 3,149 (57.4%), 24,718 yards, 7.8 YPA, 152 TD, 138 INT, 80.5 passer rating
Championships: 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967
Overview: That’s right. Bart Starr. The greatest quarterback in the history of the game.

Sit down and take notes:

History has done a grave disservice to the legacy of Starr, the 17th-round draft pick out of pre-Bear Bryant Alabama who turned into the most clutch and most cruelly efficient passing assassin of his or any other generation.

History remembers Starr’s legendary coach, and the bevy of Hall of Fame talent that surrounded him. It forgets that Starr was Lombardi’s second in command, a tremendous big-game performer, and that the Packers of the 1960s would have been just another team without the prolific Starr as their beloved on-field leader. Instead, they won five NFL championships, with Starr at the helm of every single one of those title teams, while he crafted an NFL-record 9-1 postseason mark. The rings say it all: Starr is the only quarterback in history who has one for every finger on his throwing hand.

And even if you listen to teammates today, they make it pretty clear that they would have fallen on a grenade for Starr. Leadership is an elemental piece of quarterbacking – probably more important than gaudy passing stats. And that love his teammates had for their field general is an incredible sign of his leadership.

But forget, for a moment, the team accomplishments and the “intangibles” of leadership.

If you want to talk passing and statistics, we’ll put Starr up against anybody. Anybody.

He led the NFL in passer rating five times. Johnny Unitas led the league in passer rating just twice. Ditto Joe Montana. Only Steve Young surpassed Starr’s mark (six).

And, lest we forget, Starr was the best postseason passer in NFL history, as evidenced by his record 104.8 playoff passer rating and 1.41 percent interception rate, also a postseason record (CHFF readers are well aware of the importance of not throwing picks in the playoffs). Starr played in an era when 80 was a decent passer rating. Yet he still performed more efficiently in the playoffs than folks such as Montana, Brady, Manning, Marino, Young and … well, anybody, ever.

There’s a cause and effect here, folks: NFL’s greatest dynasty, only winners of three-straight title games, and a record 9-1 postseason mark. And there, underlying it all, is Starr with his postseason passing records. The two are intricately intertwined.

History also remembers Starr’s Packers as a great running team, and that’s certainly true of their earlier years. But the truth is that they typically passed the ball more effectively than they ran it, especially during their run of three straight, when they were a below-average running team.

In their 1965 championship season, the Packers were 11th in the 14-team league with an average of 3.4 yards per rushing attempt. They were second in the league, with an average of 8.2 yards per passing attempt.

In their 1966 championship season, the Packers were 14th in the 15-team league, with an average of 3.5 yards per rushing attempt. They were first in the league, with an average of 8.9 yards per passing attempt.

In their 1967 championship season, the Packers were 4th in the 16-team league, with an average of 4.0 yards per rushing attempt. They were first in the league, with an average of 8.3 yards per passing attempt (Starr himself that season averaged 8.7 YPA).

Starr averaged a remarkable 7.85 YPA over the course of his entire career, the 8th-best mark in history, and better than that of a slate of quarterbacks who are generally regarded as the best passers in history, including Dan Marino (7.37), Joe Montana (7.52), Roger Staubach (7.67), Dan Fouts (7.68), Sonny Jurgensen (7.56), Fran Tarkenton (7.27), Y.A. Tittle (7.52), Terry Bradshaw (7.17) and Joe Namath (7.35).

Six times in the 1960s, Starr surpassed 8.2 YPA for a season. To put that into context, Peyton Manning has surpassed 8.2 YPA just twice in his brilliant 10-year career.

And, if you want drama, don’t forget that Starr scored the winning TD in the Ice Bowl, probably the most famous game in NFL history. Sure, Montana led his team 92 yards for the game-winning score in Super Bowl XXIII. But he did it on a 68-degree night in Miami. Turn down the thermostat by 86 degrees (it was 18-below in the fourth quarter of the Ice Bowl) and you begin to approximate the conditions under which the greatest quarterback in NFL history operated during his greatest moment in the sport’s greatest game.

And Starr was brilliant on that drive, in the decisive moments of the sport’s most famous game: he completed 5 of 5 passes in ball-busting cold, and then called a run play for the winning score. But instead of handing it off, he decided in his mind, without telling his teammates, that he was going to punch it in himself. It was only fitting: the game’s greatest signal-caller taking matters into his own hands in the sport’s signature moment.

To cap his career achievements, Starr earned MVP honors in the first two Super Bowls after shredding the best the AFL could throw his way for 452 yards on 47 passing attempts (9.6 YPA). Among those victims were the 1967 Raiders, perhaps the AFL's greatest single team. He posted a combined 106.0 passer rating in those two games. If you think it was no small feat to beat up on "upstart" AFL teams, just look at how NFL quarterbacks fared in Super Bowls III and IV. (Here's a hint: they were embarrassed.)

When it comes to a combination of leadership, victories, big-game performances and statistical supremacy nobody – NOBODY – put together a more total package than Bart Starr, the greatest quarterback in NFL history.

Thanks. Vince. It's not so much that I insist that Starr was THE GREATEST! (for in reality, identifying BEST at anything involves a great deal of subjectivity) - it's rather that I find the tendency amongst so many younger Packer fans to dismiss his excellence - or put it in the backseat behind Favre's - misguided.
Simply put : Bart Starr actually produced many championships for Green Bay; he found a way, sometimes with great talent, sometimes with good talent - to get the job done.
That is a HUGE factor when discussing 'greatness'.

[Charles Woodson]

The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

Im gana pretend like you know what the fuck your talking about with the '03 Packers. Hmm lets take a look at the game shall we? Favre was over 50% completion percentage, 180yds, 2 TD and 1 Int.
But anytime when Robert Ferguson is your leading reciver theres a problem

Now yes we should have won the game... But should the
defense given up 4th and 26?

Mcnabb ran all over us, 11 rushes for 107 yds. Damn was that Bretts fault too?
how about late in the 2nd quarter when we went for it on the 1 and didnt get it? kick the field goal and we woulda won...
Mcnabb killed us, both times they scored the TD's they drove all through our Defense
Another time Brett had a 40 yd pass that got us to the 7 and we came away with 3 pts.

Yes, the Int hurt but there were bigger things that lead to the losing of the game.[/b]

Bigger things that led to losing that game? My memory, aided by the drive chart aka what the fuck I'm talking about (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/drivechart?gameId=240111021), tells me that we were tied in OT with the ball on our own 42 yard line. That's prime field position in OT. We dodged our bullets and yet here we sit 0 to 0, sudden death, on our own 42. A piss away from field goal distance. The great ones elevate their play and find ways to will their team to win. How can that INT not be the biggest factor in us losing when it resulted in the Eagles scoring?

When people talk about Favre with the great ones like Jordan and Woods, the major difference between them and Favre is, Jordan and Woods hit the winning shots. Repeatedly. That's all I'm saying to those that talk about the greatest QB's. That's part of my criteria.

If you want, go ahead and keep blaming others for Favre's lack of playoff success. The fact is, the team made it to the playoffs so they couldn't have been that bad. The Broncos team that beat us in the SB were heavy underdogs for a reason. They just wanted it more and nothing personifies that any more than the spin Elway took. There was a QB who was part of willing that team on to victory. If you watch Favre in the Giants loss, it looked like he wanted to be anywhere but on that field at times.

4th and 1 at PHI Ahman Green (GNB) rushed for no gain; turnover on downs. 1:56 2nd
Im sorry but i think that the field goal that would have won the game would be JUST as big...


And your still not understanding that the 4th and 26 that they converted on the defense was THE reason we lost the game... with less than 2 minutes left, if we had stopped them we would have won also...

[The Shadow]

The Eagles playoff loss and this last one sting the most(besides the SB loss) because we had teams that were good enough to compete and win the Super Bowl and Favre had every opportunity to lead his team to victory. Interceptions cost us everytime.

Im gana pretend like you know what the fuck your talking about with the '03 Packers. Hmm lets take a look at the game shall we? Favre was over 50% completion percentage, 180yds, 2 TD and 1 Int.
But anytime when Robert Ferguson is your leading reciver theres a problem

Now yes we should have won the game... But should the
defense given up 4th and 26?

Mcnabb ran all over us, 11 rushes for 107 yds. Damn was that Bretts fault too?
how about late in the 2nd quarter when we went for it on the 1 and didnt get it? kick the field goal and we woulda won...
Mcnabb killed us, both times they scored the TD's they drove all through our Defense
Another time Brett had a 40 yd pass that got us to the 7 and we came away with 3 pts.

Yes, the Int hurt but there were bigger things that lead to the losing of the game.[/b]

Bigger things that led to losing that game? My memory, aided by the drive chart aka what the fuck I'm talking about (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/drivechart?gameId=240111021), tells me that we were tied in OT with the ball on our own 42 yard line. That's prime field position in OT. We dodged our bullets and yet here we sit 0 to 0, sudden death, on our own 42. A piss away from field goal distance. The great ones elevate their play and find ways to will their team to win. How can that INT not be the biggest factor in us losing when it resulted in the Eagles scoring?

When people talk about Favre with the great ones like Jordan and Woods, the major difference between them and Favre is, Jordan and Woods hit the winning shots. Repeatedly. That's all I'm saying to those that talk about the greatest QB's. That's part of my criteria.

If you want, go ahead and keep blaming others for Favre's lack of playoff success. The fact is, the team made it to the playoffs so they couldn't have been that bad. The Broncos team that beat us in the SB were heavy underdogs for a reason. They just wanted it more and nothing personifies that any more than the spin Elway took. There was a QB who was part of willing that team on to victory. If you watch Favre in the Giants loss, it looked like he wanted to be anywhere but on that field at times.

4th and 1 at PHI Ahman Green (GNB) rushed for no gain; turnover on downs. 1:56 2nd
Im sorry but i think that the field goal that would have won the game would be JUST as big...


And your still not understanding that the 4th and 26 that they converted on the defense was THE reason we lost the game... with less than 2 minutes left, if we had stopped them we would have won also...

Football games feature plenty of setbacks, momentum swings, and 'IF'S'.
At the end of the day : can you get your team to the top?

[Patler]

But, old farts continue to jack off to Bart Starr...and neglect to ever mention the incredible defense that was far better than any defense Brett Favre ever played with...including the Super Bowl champion team.

Of course I could say the same about the young whipper snappers paying penile homage to Favre. It's as if a positive statement about Starr is a negative inference toward Favre.

I also think you are doing a disservice to the Packer's D in 1996. They were the #1 in the NFL in overall defense, #1 defense in least points allowed, #1 passing defense, #4 rushing defense. How much more do you want????

I am amazed at how vehemently some object to anything positive said about Starr. I have never suggested he was better than Favre, because physically he was no match. All I suggested was that you really lacked an appreciation for the role he played on the team in the '60s.

[Scott Campbell]

Of course I could say the same about the young whipper snappers paying penile homage to Favre.



ROFL

[Iron Mike]

Anybody that lists Steve Young ahead of Brett Favre loses all credibility with me.

Agreed. And we've seen how awesome Laser Rocket Arm is when he doesn't have Marvin Harrison to throw to. :roll:

[The Leaper]

I also think you are doing a disservice to the Packer's D in 1996. They were the #1 in the NFL in overall defense, #1 defense in least points allowed, #1 passing defense, #4 rushing defense. How much more do you want????

Yes, that defense was very good...but it was aging fast. White was already past his prime by that time...and many other key players on defense were near or at the point of decline as well.


I am amazed at how vehemently some object to anything positive said about Starr. I have never suggested he was better than Favre, because physically he was no match. All I suggested was that you really lacked an appreciation for the role he played on the team in the '60s.

Patler, you may not have suggested that Starr was a better QB. Others have. I came out from the start suggesting Starr was the MOST SUCCESSFUL QB in Packer history, just not the GREATEST. Like Bill Russell was the most successful NBA center...but Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest. How the hell does that take away from Starr? It simply points out the obvious.

I also believe many have a lack of appreciation for the talent around Starr. Starr, like most QBs, gets way too much of the accolades. This is ESPECIALLY true when QBs are surrounded by a ridiculous amount of talent. I wasn't around in the 1960s, but I've done plenty of reading and watching films from that era. To hear old farts blabber on and on and on and on and on and on and on about Starr...hardly discussing guys like Davis, Wood or Adderly at all...it pisses me off when I read and see how talented those guys truly were.

If ONLY Favre had that kind of prime defensive talent around him during the bulk of his prime like Starr did.

The point is that Favre was RARELY surrounded by ridiculous amounts of talent, while Starr was OFTEN surrounded by it. Anyone who thinks that the Packers in the 1960s could not have won 5 titles with Favre instead of Starr is kidding themselves...just as anyone who feels that Starr could've accomplished what Favre did in the 1990s on relatively mediocre offenses is also kidding themselves. You can continue to fawn over Dorsey Levens or Edgar Bennett or an aged Keith Jackson...those guys are all average players in the NFL in 1996 on a team without Favre. IMO, Starr still had more talent on his offense in 1966 than Favre had in 1996.

Starr was a great leader...and a solid QB. With the talent around him, that's all he needed to be. Kudos to him. That doesn't make him one of the all-time greats...no more than Troy Aikman or Terry Bradshaw should be listed among the all-time greats simply because they were surrounded with a wealth of talent that any other great QB could've also led to multiple titles.

Starr made the Packers winners under Lombardi...and sucked pretty much the rest of the time he was in Green Bay.

Favre made the Packers winners under Holmgren, Sherman and McCarthy...he even almost made Rhodes a winner! The Packers were ALWAYS playoff contenders with Favre under center...the same cannot be said for Starr. That is the bottom line, even if some choose to ignore it.

[Patler]

Leaper;

What I think you are not appreciating is how bad the Packer roster became shortly after 1967, due to age, retirements and injuries. In the O-line, Skoronski and Kramer were gone in 1969 and Bowman was constantly hurt. Taylor and Hornung were gone already in 1967. Anderson and Grabowski at RB were hand-picked to be the next Taylor and Hornung, but didn't come anywhere close. Grabowski was constantly out of the lineup with injuries. Gregg was gone in 1970 as were Willie Davis, Ron Kostelnick, Henry Jordan, and Herb Adderley on defense. Nitschke was a shell of himself by 1968-69. He had so much trouble running it was painful just to watch him, but the coaching staff didn't have the will to sit him down. The team really started to fall apart in 1968, and the cast that Starr played with until he retired was more like what Favre had in 2004-2006.

Starr himself played too long. He was injured a lot the last couple years and finished his career something like Marino did with his.

Many fans tend to forget that guys like Starr, Nitschke, Davis, Jordan, Gregg, Hornung and others were in the NFL, some with other teams, two and three years before Lombardi even came to Green Bay. By the time Lombardi retired, the core of the great Packer teams was well-past its prime, and most of the players were gone within just a few years after the second championship in 1966. The Championship in 1967 was really unexpected. For as great as Lombardi was, he really assembled only one squad and a couple replacements very early like Bowman, Gillingham and Jeter. When that wave of players retired, the cupboard was petty bare. He didn't have a lot of capable replacements on hand, other than at LB were he always seemed to find someone and left the team fairly well stocked. Not so elsewhere.

Again, that was one of the things that made the Packers three Championships in 1965-67 so special. It was achieved by a roster that was well past its peak. The Lombardi teams really peaked in 1961, '62 and '63, even though it did not win the Championship in 1963. There were no playoffs, just a championship game between the two conference champs, and the Packers finished 2nd in the West with an 11-2-1 record. They drubbed the Browns in the "Runnerup Bowl" that year, which was played by the 2nd place teams. In 1964 they not only finished 2nd, but also lost the Runnerup bowl, and many that their time had passed. That whole string of three Championships was very exciting, because it was unexpected in so many ways.

[The Shadow]

1.[/b] I wasn't around in the 1960s, but I've done plenty of reading and watching films from that era. To hear old farts blabber on and on and on and on and on and on and on about Starr...

2.The Packers were ALWAYS playoff contenders with Favre (4-12???)under center...the same cannot be said for Starr. That is the bottom line, even if some choose to ignore it.


1. There is really no substitute for primary sources in these matters.
2. Correct. Under Starr's guidance, they did not simply contend - they WON!

[The Leaper]

Again, that was one of the things that made the Packers three Championships in 1965-67 so special. It was achieved by a roster that was well past its peak.

Sure, the OFFENSE was "well past its peak"...which is my entire point. Everyone creams their pants over the offense on those teams...the first guys mentioned in terms of the "Lombardi era" are Starr, Taylor, Hornung, Gregg and Kramer.

However, I completely disagree with you on the other side of the football Patler. I don't know where you come off suggesting most of the Packer defensive stars were "well past their peak."

Was Willie Wood past his peak in 1964-1967? Of course not. He was voted to the Pro Bowl TEN STRAIGHT SEASONS, beginning in 1962. The fact is that Wood was a HOF defensive player in his PRIME from 1965-1967.

Was Herb Adderly past his peak in 1965-1967? Of course not. He was an All-Pro selection EIGHT STRAIGHT SEASONS, beginning in 1962. The fact is that Adderly was a HOF defensive player in his PRIME from 1965-1967.

Was Willie Davis past his peak in 1965-1967? Yes, I believe so...but I think he would be very comparable to Reggie White in 1996. Davis was in his prime as a HOF defensive player from 1963-1965, so he wasn't far removed from his prime just a couple years later. Thus, he was still a stud in the period you mention.

Was Ray Nitschke past his peak in 1965-1967? Here I am somewhat in agreement with you. Ray was not the player at the end of the Lombardi dynasty that he was at the beginning. However, like Davis, Nitschke remained a fearsome player not far removed from his prime.

Let's also consider the other major contributors on defense in the period you mention (1965-1967).

LB Dave Robinson...a 1963 draft pick, a 3 time Pro Bowl pick (66, 67, 69)who certainly was IN HIS PRIME from 1965-1970 in Green Bay.

LB Lee Roy Caffey...a 1963 draft pick, he was not a HOF caliber player, but he did go to the Pro Bowl in 66 and was clearly IN HIS PRIME from 1965-1968 in Green Bay.

DT Henry Jordan...a solid starter who was definately past his peak. His prime was during the early Lombardi years.

DB Rob Jeter and DB Tom Brown were both capable starters who were in their mid-to-late 20's from 1965-1967. Hardly "past their peak".

I'm sorry Patler...you are dead wrong about the Packers defense in the Starr era. Lombardi's defense early was mostly average during his first 4-5 years in Green Bay. Then, as Adderly, Wood, Robinson and Caffey came into their prime alongside guys like Davis, Jordan and Nitschke...who were aging but still very solid, it created a NASTY defense that was quite possibly the best in the league from 1964-1968.

While the offensive stars were certainly past their peak by SB 1 and 2, the defense was by no means past its peak. The defense crumbled when Lombardi left...and guys like Adderly moved on to greener pastures. To claim Starr was surrounded by a bunch of has-beens in SB 1 and 2 ignores just how strong the Packer defense was in those years.

[Patler]

1. I wasn't around in the 1960s, but I've done plenty of reading and watching films from that era. To hear old farts blabber on and on and on and on and on and on and on about Starr...

2.The Packers were ALWAYS playoff contenders with Favre (4-12???)under center...the same cannot be said for Starr. That is the bottom line, even if some choose to ignore it.


1. There is really no substitute for primary sources in these matters.
2. Correct. Under Starr's guidance, they did not simply contend - they WON!

Shadow;

I don't know how many of us on here actually watched Starr. I of course did, as apparently you did too.

I loved watching Favre, and watching Starr was probably never as exciting. BUT, I have to admit that I never worried about Starr making a bonehead play, or just throwing a ball up for grabs. It just didn't happen. He was a very patient player who could go for the juggler when the time was right.

I think when fans have only seen one great player at a position on their team, they tend to discount all others. When you have seen more than one you tend to compare more objectively, But I will admit that I have a hard time appreciating players I never saw, and probably prejudically think of the ones I have seen as being better. I think that clouds many fans' appreciation of Starr. They never saw what he did, they have seen only plays here and there. If you listen to the Packer players from that era, they all recognize Starr as the key to their success for many reasons.

[The Leaper]

2. Correct. Under Starr's guidance, they did not simply contend - they WON!

No, under Lombardi's guidance, they won.

Under Starr's guidance without Lombardi, the Packers were extemely mediocre.

[The Leaper]

I loved watching Favre, and watching Starr was probably never as exciting. BUT, I have to admit that I never worried about Starr making a bonehead play, or just throwing a ball up for grabs. It just didn't happen. He was a very patient player who could go for the juggler when the time was right.

That's great. He could get away with it in the Lombardi years because he had such a tremendous amount of talent around him. When he did not have the talent around him very early and near the end of his career, Starr looked like crap.

Again...Bart Starr could never have led the Packers to the Super Bowl win in 1996. That offense wasn't overly talented to begin with, and as injuries mounted, Starr would not have possessed the raw skill to make that offense a juggernaut like Favre did. Favre's unique ability to make plays out of absolutely nothing was ridiculous in his prime. He amazed us LAST YEAR...even I forget at times just how ridiculously good he was from 1995-1997. IMO, that was the best 3 year stretch any QB in NFL history has put together.

Unfortunately, Favre did not have great offensive talent around him in his prime...and the defense was very good, but very old and disintegrated quickly after SB 32.

[The Shadow]

1. I wasn't around in the 1960s, but I've done plenty of reading and watching films from that era. To hear old farts blabber on and on and on and on and on and on and on about Starr...

2.The Packers were ALWAYS playoff contenders with Favre (4-12???)under center...the same cannot be said for Starr. That is the bottom line, even if some choose to ignore it.


1. There is really no substitute for primary sources in these matters.
2. Correct. Under Starr's guidance, they did not simply contend - they WON!

Shadow;

I don't know how many of us on here actually watched Starr. I of course did, as apparently you did too.

I loved watching Favre, and watching Starr was probably never as exciting. BUT, I have to admit that I never worried about Starr making a bonehead play, or just throwing a ball up for grabs. It just didn't happen. He was a very patient player who could go for the juggler when the time was right.

I think when fans have only seen one great player at a position on their team, they tend to discount all others. When you have seen more than one you tend to compare more objectively, But I will admit that I have a hard time appreciating players I never saw, and probably prejudically think of the ones I have seen as being better. I think that clouds many fans' appreciation of Starr. They never saw what he did, they have seen only plays here and there. If you listen to the Packer players from that era, they all recognize Starr as the key to their success for many reasons.

Of course; agree completely.
At the same time, I really do understand the somewhat fanatical fervor that many of the younger posters have regarding Brett. Starr's terrific success record has them sputtering - and coming up with amusing reasons why it is insignificant compared to the greatnes of #4. We have also been treated to every reason under the sun why Brett's meltdowns have ALWAYS been someone else's fault - otherwise, he would have won more championships (in fact, he would have won every game!).
Lombardi, talent, the era, blah, blah, blah, are the sole reasons, according to them, for Starr's success. Of yeah : "He was a fine leader" (game manager?). What a concession!
Why Favre's undeniably more modest success rate? Favre's receivers are often portayed as the culprits in his decisions/interceptions, but sometimes it's the coach, the blocking, the refs, the hotdog vendor, his pregame body language, etc. It's never upon his own shoulders.
Loved Favre, great quarterback - but I watched the both.
Favre had loads more athletic ability - but Bart Starr was the superior quarterback.

[Patler]

Again...Bart Starr could never have led the Packers to the Super Bowl win in 1996. That offense wasn't overly talented to begin with, and as injuries mounted, Starr would not have possessed the raw skill to make that offense a juggernaut like Favre did.

I really don't want to try and compare Favre to Starr, but I can assure you this. Starr would have been a great QB in Holmgren's offense. Starr was exactly what Holmgren wanted Favre to be, patient and smart. Starr would have done fine leading the Packers in 1996. One of the reasons the Packers won that game was because Favre played much like Starr always did. He took chances when the opportunity was right, not recklessly

Just my opinion from having witnessed the entire careers of both.

[Patler]

When he did not have the talent around him very early and near the end of his career, Starr looked like crap.
.

I'm not quite sure where you get that idea. Before Lombardi, Starr was just a young QB learning how to play in a fairly dysfunctional organization at that time. How good was Favre in Atlanta? How good would he have been if forced to stay there for two or three more years? Part of the problem early in Starr's career is that he was splitting time with Babe Parilli and Lamar McHan. Even Lombardi admitted that it took him a year and a half to recognize how good Starr was. He thought of him as "soft" because he had a mild, quiet demeanor. It was only after Starr confronted Lombardi and refused to back down on the field that Lombardi realized he was wrong.

People forget that Favre's strak was jeopardized early in his career, and the coaches had pretty much agreed to bench him in favor of Brunnell at one point. The difference was that the packers really had no experienced option at that time. In 1958, '59 and '60 they did, so Starr played less.

After 1967? - Starr had a fine year in 1968, but missed a few games do to injury. Same in 1969, but again injuries caused Don Horn to play as much as Starr did. When he was playing those two years he was at the top of the league's QBs (63% completions, 24 TDs, 14 interceptions) He sure did not look like "crap" in 1968 and 1969.

1970 was a down year for Starr, but by that time the offense was totally rebuilt with players not nearly as good, not unlike what we saw in 2004. Favre had his own problems in similar situations. The defense in 1970 gave up almost 10 points more per game than it did as recently as just four year earlier in 1966. Starr didn't have the defensive support through his entire career that you seem to think he did.

Starr only played 3 games in 1971 as his last hurrah.

So just how is it that he looked like crap after Lombardi???? He was a very old QB for his era at that time, but still played very well in 1968 and 1969. 1970 was certainly not a good performance, but not outrageously horrible either.

[The Leaper]

Before Lombardi, Starr was just a young QB learning how to play in a fairly dysfunctional organization at that time. How good was Favre in Atlanta?

He wasn't even given a chance in Atlanta. You know that Patler.

I know how good Favre was the minute he replaced Majik...or do I need to go out and find the tape of Favre LAZER BEAMING a throw to Kitrick Taylor for a comeback win? That was his first REAL game action. He made a throw Starr could never have imagined making.

I don't see that stuff happening in Starr's early years.

[The Leaper]

People forget that Favre's strak was jeopardized early in his career, and the coaches had pretty much agreed to bench him in favor of Brunnell at one point.

Was the team still winning?

[Patler]

People forget that Favre's strak was jeopardized early in his career, and the coaches had pretty much agreed to bench him in favor of Brunnell at one point.

Was the team still winning?

Was the team winning in 1960 when Starr was "on the bubble" for starting?

[Patler]

Before Lombardi, Starr was just a young QB learning how to play in a fairly dysfunctional organization at that time. How good was Favre in Atlanta?

He wasn't even given a chance in Atlanta. You know that Patler.

I know how good Favre was the minute he replaced Majik...or do I need to go out and find the tape of Favre LAZER BEAMING a throw to Kitrick Taylor for a comeback win? That was his first REAL game action. He made a throw Starr could never have imagined making.

I don't see that stuff happening in Starr's early years.

And Starr wasn't given a chance in 1956 either, after all, Tobin Rote was an all-pro that year. For the next few seasons, Babe Parilli was supposed to be the guy. He was a 1st round pick and Starr a 17th. Who do you think was given the opportunities????

Lombardi came in '59 without knowing Starr, and traded a high draft pick for Lamar McHan. He played Starr when McHan was hurt at the end of the year, and Starr went 4-1. McHan had been 3-4. In 1960, Lombardi went back to his hand-picked QB early, and in spite of the team winning, went to Starr in the middle of 1960. Starr was a pro bowl player in 1961 and thereafter.

All Starr needed was the commitment from the coach.

[Chester Marcol]

He made a throw Starr could never have imagined making.

Are we talking about Favre's last throw of his career?

It's not a question of what Favre COULD do, it's the undeniable thing that Favre could NOT do that has me question his place on the "greatest" list. If he would have drove us back down the field against Denver and won that Super Bowl, that would have been totally on him and that drive would have cemented him among the greatest. Shit. You would never tell the story about Joe Montana's comeback SB winning drive again without an "oh yeah?" and then the story of Favre's comeback drive against Denver. The debate would be Montana or Favre should be ahead of the other. Not whether Favre should be ahead of Steve Young. Whoopee. Unfortunately for a Packer fan, how the Denver Super Bowl ended would be eirily similar to every one of our playoff exits for the rest of Favre's career.

I just don't buy the crap about not having talent around him(especially when we're in the playoffs) that seems to make it OK for Favre to throw an INT in some of our most important games where we had a legitimate chance to get to and win a Super Bowl. Especially when you see the video or photos of other backs or receivers who are standing wide open just as dumb founded as us fans as to why Favre didn't throw them the ball. Heaven forbid we methodically work our way down the field and not pad our highlight real.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He made a throw Starr could never have imagined making.

Are we talking about Favre's last throw of his career?

It's not a question of what Favre COULD do, it's the undeniable thing that Favre could NOT do that has me question his place on the "greatest" list. If he would have drove us back down the field against Denver and won that Super Bowl, that would have been totally on him and that drive would have cemented him among the greatest. Shit. You would never tell the story about Joe Montana's comeback SB winning drive again without an "oh yeah?" and then the story of Favre's comeback drive against Denver. The debate would be Montana or Favre should be ahead of the other. Not whether Favre should be ahead of Steve Young. Whoopee. Unfortunately for a Packer fan, how the Denver Super Bowl ended would be eirily similar to every one of our playoff exits for the rest of Favre's career.

I just don't buy the crap about not having talent around him(especially when we're in the playoffs) that seems to make it OK for Favre to throw an INT in some of our most important games where we had a legitimate chance to get to and win a Super Bowl. Especially when you see the video or photos of other backs or receivers who are standing wide open just as dumb founded as us fans as to why Favre didn't throw them the ball. Heaven forbid we methodically work our way down the field and not pad our highlight real.

We've rehashed the throw in OT. Subsequent photos showed that the original photo was an inaccurate portrayal. Besides, the main question on that throw was: who was Favre's primary target and was he open? If it was Driver, then I'd say yes. That was a bad throw, so to continue to make it out to be a boneheaded decision just shows ignorance or bias.

Now, to the subject at hand. Montana failed in his career. So did Elway. Tom Brady has failed. Peyton Manning and Brett Favre have failed. The difference with playing on a great team is that people remember the times you were successful and forget the times you failed. When people look back at Brady, they'll think of his clutch play and will likely not remember several stinker games he's had recently or will probably continue to have in the future.

Choosing between Starr and Favre is tough and probably not fair to either guy. Different rules, different competition, different system, different teammates and coaches. Different in so many ways. Both were great QBs.

Favre took average teams and made them very competitive. He did this in an era that was much more difficult to make a team a consistently competitive (more teams, FA, etc.). The couple of years he had a great team around him, he took them to the Super Bowl. He has all of the records. The most wins. The consecutive starts. On the other hand, he made more bad plays and more great plays than Starr. Maybe because he had to.

Starr led great teams to championships. That should be commended. It's not a knock. He was the ultimate game manager. On the other hand, Starr did very little with poor teams. He couldn't will average teams to competitiveness. Maybe a year or two, but not over the majority of his career.

To me, Starr would be the type of guy you'd want to play if you had a great team around him. Favre would be the type of guy you'd want otherwise.

The one thing that sticks out to me though is this: the main reason for any success the Packers have had over the last 16 years was Brett Favre. The main reason the 60s Packers had success was Vince Lombardi. Like I said before, saying that means Starr can't win because it implies he wasn't the most important reason for the success, but that's the way I feel.

[The Leaper]

And Starr wasn't given a chance in 1956 either, after all, Tobin Rote was an all-pro that year. For the next few seasons, Babe Parilli was supposed to be the guy. He was a 1st round pick and Starr a 17th. Who do you think was given the opportunities????

Please Patler. You should know far better than this what Starr's opportunities were. I'm 32, and I know a hell of a lot more.

In 1956 (rookie year) you are correct that Starr saw limited action...but he did play in 9 games and attempted 44 passes. Considerably more than Favre's 5 attempts, which were all hail mary's if I remember correctly.

In 1957 (2nd year), Starr attempted 215 passes in 12 games. He was given plenty of chance that year...and he was very mediocre. He had more attempts that year than he had in 1967, where you claim he was the key player for the offense.

In 1958, Starr was downright putrid and was benched. He played in 12 games that year and had 157 attempts, completing less than 50% of them and having 12 of them intercepted...a 7.6% INT ratio. Yep, he was always the beacon of good decision making.

Because of the disaster that was 1958, Starr saw less action in 1959 and 1960, but still put up well over 100 attempts both years. In none of those first 5 seasons did Starr throw more TDs than INTs or throw for more than 1500 yards.

So tell me again how Starr proved his brilliance in his first 5 years...or how he did not get a chance when he heaved well over 700 passes in that time.

[The Leaper]

It's not a question of what Favre COULD do, it's the undeniable thing that Favre could NOT do that has me question his place on the "greatest" list. If he would have drove us back down the field against Denver and won that Super Bowl, that would have been totally on him and that drive would have cemented him among the greatest.

You must've missed the rest of the game Chester. Favre was brilliant in that game...but the defense was woefully inept and couldn't stop Terrell Davis.

FYI, even had we scored a TD on that last drive, it only would've tied the game.

Pinning the loss in SB 32 on Favre shows no common sense whatsoever.

[The Leaper]

To me, Starr would be the type of guy you'd want to play if you had a great team around him. Favre would be the type of guy you'd want otherwise.

I agree.

And the point is that if both Favre and Starr have a great team around them, both are very likely to win...although I would certainly admit that Starr probably has a slightly greater chance. However, Favre never played on a team with 6-8 HOF caliber players around him...I'm sure he could've won 5 titles with that kind of talent around him, probably more.

With a less than great team around them, Favre clearly is superior to Starr by a longshot.

The bottom line is that Vince Lombardi was the guy responsible for the 1960s dynasty. He was the single force present in the success, and was the reason for its rise and decline.

The bottom line is that Brett Favre was the guy responsible for the current dynasty. He was the single force present throughout the success, despite numerous coaches and GMs.

[The Shadow]

To me, Starr would be the type of guy you'd want to play if you had a great team around him. Favre would be the type of guy you'd want otherwise.

I agree.

And the point is that if both Favre and Starr have a great team around them, both are very likely to win...although I would certainly admit that Starr probably has a slightly greater chance. However, Favre never played on a team with 6-8 HOF caliber players around him...I'm sure he could've won 5 titles with that kind of talent around him, probably more.

With a less than great team around them, Favre clearly is superior to Starr by a longshot.

1. The bottom line is that Vince Lombardi was the guy responsible for the 1960s dynasty. He was the single force present in the success, and was the reason for its rise and decline.

2.The bottom line is that Brett Favre was the guy responsible for the current dynasty. He was the single force present throughout the success, despite numerous coaches and GMs.

1. All the coaching in the world means little if the guy at the controls can't make it happen.
2. Dynasty? I thought we won a single championship. If Starr's many success' came solely from Lombardi, why would it not be true that Favre's single championship came courtesy of Holmgren?

[HarveyWallbangers]

1. All the coaching in the world means little if the guy at the controls can't make it happen.
2. Dynasty? I thought we won a single championship. If Starr's many success' came solely from Lombardi, why would it not be true that Favre's single championship came courtesy of Holmgren?

1. Agreed, but Starr didn't do anything without Lombardi. How many Hall of Famers did that crew have? How did Starr do without Lombardi? Was Lombardi not the greatest coach in history? How many teams played in the NFL at the time? How much did player movement deplete the corps of the team?
2. Agreed, but we've had a very nice run of success--especially after 25 years of being a laughingstock.

[The Shadow]

1. All the coaching in the world means little if the guy at the controls can't make it happen.
2. Dynasty? I thought we won a single championship. If Starr's many success' came solely from Lombardi, why would it not be true that Favre's single championship came courtesy of Holmgren?

1. Agreed, but Starr didn't do anything without Lombardi. How many Hall of Famers did that crew have? How did Starr do without Lombardi? Was Lombardi not the greatest coach in history? How many teams played in the NFL at the time? How much did player movement deplete the corps of the team?
2. Agreed, but we've had a very nice run of success--especially after 25 years of being a laughingstock.

Did Favre win anything without Holmgren?

[Scott Campbell]

Before Lombardi, Starr was just a young QB learning how to play in a fairly dysfunctional organization at that time. How good was Favre in Atlanta?

He wasn't even given a chance in Atlanta. You know that Patler.

I know how good Favre was the minute he replaced Majik...or do I need to go out and find the tape of Favre LAZER BEAMING a throw to Kitrick Taylor for a comeback win? That was his first REAL game action. He made a throw Starr could never have imagined making.

I don't see that stuff happening in Starr's early years.

And Starr wasn't given a chance in 1956 either, after all, Tobin Rote was an all-pro that year. For the next few seasons, Babe Parilli was supposed to be the guy. He was a 1st round pick and Starr a 17th. Who do you think was given the opportunities????

Lombardi came in '59 without knowing Starr, and traded a high draft pick for Lamar McHan. He played Starr when McHan was hurt at the end of the year, and Starr went 4-1. McHan had been 3-4. In 1960, Lombardi went back to his hand-picked QB early, and in spite of the team winning, went to Starr in the middle of 1960. Starr was a pro bowl player in 1961 and thereafter.

All Starr needed was the commitment from the coach.



Geez. Is that you Lee Remmel?

[Scott Campbell]

These "best ever" arguments tend to be kind of silly, but this thread is turning into quite the history lesson.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

To me, Starr would be the type of guy you'd want to play if you had a great team around him. Favre would be the type of guy you'd want otherwise.

I agree.

And the point is that if both Favre and Starr have a great team around them, both are very likely to win...although I would certainly admit that Starr probably has a slightly greater chance. However, Favre never played on a team with 6-8 HOF caliber players around him...I'm sure he could've won 5 titles with that kind of talent around him, probably more.

With a less than great team around them, Favre clearly is superior to Starr by a longshot.

1. The bottom line is that Vince Lombardi was the guy responsible for the 1960s dynasty. He was the single force present in the success, and was the reason for its rise and decline.

2.The bottom line is that Brett Favre was the guy responsible for the current dynasty. He was the single force present throughout the success, despite numerous coaches and GMs.

1. All the coaching in the world means little if the guy at the controls can't make it happen.
2. Dynasty? I thought we won a single championship. If Starr's many success' came solely from Lombardi, why would it not be true that Favre's single championship came courtesy of Holmgren?

1. Really. Guess Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien, Doug williams, etc. wouldn't seem to back that up.

[HarveyWallbangers]

1. All the coaching in the world means little if the guy at the controls can't make it happen.
2. Dynasty? I thought we won a single championship. If Starr's many success' came solely from Lombardi, why would it not be true that Favre's single championship came courtesy of Holmgren?

1. Agreed, but Starr didn't do anything without Lombardi. How many Hall of Famers did that crew have? How did Starr do without Lombardi? Was Lombardi not the greatest coach in history? How many teams played in the NFL at the time? How much did player movement deplete the corps of the team?
2. Agreed, but we've had a very nice run of success--especially after 25 years of being a laughingstock.

Did Favre win anything without Holmgren?

1) The comparison is laughable.
2) Did Starr even have a winning record without Lombardi?

[texaspackerbacker]

Favre unquestionably #1 all time. All the objective evidence supports that idea.

Marino 2, Tarkenton 3, Elway 4, Unitas 5, Otto Graham 6, Starr 7.

What is the logic in choosing the number "7"?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Serious questions for Patler and the other old-timers.

How many years did Starr play under somebody other than Lombardi?
How many starts did Starr make with somebody other than Lombardi?
What was his winning percentage in those games?
How many playoff games did Starr win as QB without Lombardi as coach?

[The Shadow]

1. All the coaching in the world means little if the guy at the controls can't make it happen.
2. Dynasty? I thought we won a single championship. If Starr's many success' came solely from Lombardi, why would it not be true that Favre's single championship came courtesy of Holmgren?

1. Agreed, but Starr didn't do anything without Lombardi. How many Hall of Famers did that crew have? How did Starr do without Lombardi? Was Lombardi not the greatest coach in history? How many teams played in the NFL at the time? How much did player movement deplete the corps of the team?
2. Agreed, but we've had a very nice run of success--especially after 25 years of being a laughingstock.

Did Favre win anything without Holmgren?

1) The comparison is laughable.
2) Did Starr even have a winning record without Lombardi?

1. Really? Why, exactly?
You can't claim that Starr's success (many of them!) were all due to Lombardi - and then claim that Favre's single success had nothing to do with Holmgren.
That just doesn't compute.
By the way : why is the notion that Bart Starr could just possible be superior to Brett Favre be so terribly threatening to you?
Is another opinion - one, I may add, based on personal observation of BOTH quarterbacks - so utterly intolerable?
Why is it so important to dance the dogmatic lockstep?

[Bretsky]

1. All the coaching in the world means little if the guy at the controls can't make it happen.
2. Dynasty? I thought we won a single championship. If Starr's many success' came solely from Lombardi, why would it not be true that Favre's single championship came courtesy of Holmgren?

1. Agreed, but Starr didn't do anything without Lombardi. How many Hall of Famers did that crew have? How did Starr do without Lombardi? Was Lombardi not the greatest coach in history? How many teams played in the NFL at the time? How much did player movement deplete the corps of the team?
2. Agreed, but we've had a very nice run of success--especially after 25 years of being a laughingstock.

Did Favre win anything without Holmgren?

1) The comparison is laughable.
2) Did Starr even have a winning record without Lombardi?

1. Really? Why, exactly?
You can't claim that Starr's success (many of them!) were all due to Lombardi - and then claim that Favre's single success had nothing to do with Holmgren.
That just doesn't compute.
By the way : why is the notion that Bart Starr could just possible be superior to Brett Favre be so terribly threatening to you?
Is another opinion - one, I may add, based on personal observation of BOTH quarterbacks - so utterly intolerable?
Why is it so important to dance the dogmatic lockstep?


I've dodged this argument; but I think what HW is saying is Favre won with all his coaches. Had a winning record in every season but one.

I honestly have no clue what Starr's record was without Lombardi but now I'm curious.

What was it ?

How many playoff games did he win w/o Vince ?

[texaspackerbacker]

The Packers were 6-7-1. 8-6, and 6-8 in the three Bengtson years--no playoff games, much less wins. The first year after Bengtson--under Devine, Starr only played in four games--his last season.

[Bretsky]

The Packers were 6-7-1. 8-6, and 6-8 in the three Bengtson years--no playoff games, much less wins. The first year after Bengtson--under Devine, Starr only played in four games--his last season.


Thank you for answering my question Tex; I see HW's point

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Packers were 6-7-1. 8-6, and 6-8 in the three Bengtson years--no playoff games, much less wins. The first year after Bengtson--under Devine, Starr only played in four games--his last season.

Thank you for answering my question Tex; I see HW's point

I know the teams before Lombardi were even worse than that, but I wasn't sure what they did immediately after Lombardi left.

Just looked it up: it looks like the Packers went 3-9, 4-8, and 1-10-1 in the 3 years before Lombardi took over (8-27-1).

The Packers went 62-24-4 under Lombardi.

They went 28-48-2 in the three years before and after Lombardi, and Starr was the QB for a majority of that time.

[Bretsky]

The Packers were 6-7-1. 8-6, and 6-8 in the three Bengtson years--no playoff games, much less wins. The first year after Bengtson--under Devine, Starr only played in four games--his last season.

Thank you for answering my question Tex; I see HW's point

I know the teams before Lombardi were even worse than that, but I wasn't sure what they did immediately after Lombardi left.

Just looked it up: it looks like the Packers went 3-9, 4-8, and 1-10-1 in the 3 years before Lombardi took over (8-27-1).

The Packers went 62-24-4 under Lombardi.

They went 28-48-2 in the three years before and after Lombardi, and Starr was the QB for a majority of that time.


Makes sense why the questions were ingnored then

[The Leaper]

You can't claim that Starr's success (many of them!) were all due to Lombardi - and then claim that Favre's single success had nothing to do with Holmgren.

That just doesn't compute.

If you put Holmgren in the same class as Lombardi, only you are the fool.

Holmgren...and for that matter the Packers...would not have won a Super Bowl in the last 15 years without Favre.

Lombardi could've won multiple titles without Starr.

[The Leaper]

By the way : why is the notion that Bart Starr could just possible be superior to Brett Favre be so terribly threatening to you?

It isn't threatening. It just defies logic.

While Starr is superior to Favre in some respects, he's clearly not a better overall QB than Favre. It isn't even close, really.

[The Leaper]

They went 28-48-2 in the three years before and after Lombardi, and Starr was the QB for a majority of that time.

Yep.

That's my point. If Starr was as great as Favre, his teams would not have possessed a .360 winning percentage over the years Starr did not have Lombardi on the sidelines. Yeah, I admit Starr was very young and very old without Lombardi...but in his first 3 years in the league, Starr SUCKED.

That is a point guys like Shadow simply cannot bring themselves to admit. Shadow will point to Favre in 1993 and suggest it compares to Starr's early struggles...when there is no logical way to possibly compare those periods.

Favre, despite constant changes in personnel, coaches and executives and his own personal struggles both on and off the field, had only ONE LOSING SEASON in Green Bay...and that season was so marred by injuries that Favre had the chance to work with such NFL stalwarts as Taco Wallace and Samkon Gado.

Sorry, Starr lovers. No other GBP QB holds a candle to Favre as the total package.

[Zool]

By the way : why is the notion that Bart Starr could just possible be superior to Brett Favre be so terribly threatening to you?

This is a cheap cop out reply. Its just as easy to retort with "why is the notion that Favre could be superior so threatening to you?"

Offensive gameplans from the 60's were quite a bit more simplistic than todays and specifically the WCO. Favre had to know more plays, more formations and more audibles. He has done more with less than Starr. No one is saying that Starr wasnt great, but Favre was better.

Do you think Griese was better than Marino? He played in 3 straight and won 2 superbowls. Marino played in 1 and won 0.

[Fritz]

I hated Fran Tarkenton. Hated that guy. I just wanted to see him once, just once, get nailed.

[The Shadow]

5 championships
1 championship

[Chester Marcol]

5 championships
1 championship

Come on Shadow. You know that comparing championships won only works on Viking fans.

[The Leaper]

5 championships
1 championship

10 HOF players/coaches in support
Herb Adderly
Willie Davis
Forrest Gregg
Paul Hornung
Henry Jordan
Ray Nitschke
Jim Taylor
Willie Wood
Jim Ringo
Vince Lombardi

1 HOF players/coaches in support
Reggie White

To suggest Favre could not have won 5 titles with 10 HOF caliber people around him is stupid.

[The Leaper]

Do you think Griese was better than Marino? He played in 3 straight and won 2 superbowls. Marino played in 1 and won 0.

Of course Shadow thinks Griese is better than Marino.

2 championships
0 championships

Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien and Eli Manning are also better than Marino according to Shadow's logic.

[Zool]

Do you think Griese was better than Marino? He played in 3 straight and won 2 superbowls. Marino played in 1 and won 0.

Of course Shadow thinks Griese is better than Marino.

2 championships
0 championships

Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien and Eli Manning are also better than Marino according to Shadow's logic.

Does that mean Stan Humphries is as good as Marino? He took the Chargers to the SB one year.

[The Shadow]

Bacon beats Shakin'.
Cash over Flash.
Ring trumps Bling.
Championships beat ....... Duh'o!

[Zool]

Well shit Shadow, I'm going to revise my top10 QB's of all time to include Brad Johnson and Jeff Hostetler.