An interesting take on ranking all-time QB's

[packinpatland]

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

Our guy is third behind two awesome players.

[HarveyWallbangers]

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

[oregonpackfan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Merlin]

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

1) Individual Accomplishments
2) Team Accomplishments

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

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

[oregonpackfan]

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

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

[The Leaper]

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

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

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

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

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

[mmmdk]

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

[GBRulz]

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

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

[HarveyWallbangers]

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

That article has him 3rd.

[The Leaper]

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

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

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

[PackerBlues]

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

[MJZiggy]

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

[oregonpackfan]

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

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

Leaper,

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

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

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

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

[The Leaper]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

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

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