An interesting take on ranking all-time QB's

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"You are letting the past cloud your judgement."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

Damn I wanted the Bengals to win that game.

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

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

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

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

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

[The Shadow]

"You are letting the past cloud your judgement."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Freak Out]

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

Damn I wanted the Bengals to win that game.

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

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

[Merlin]

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"You are letting the past cloud your judgement."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Produced with HOFs. Including a HOF coach.

Can we same the same for Favre?

[The Leaper]

7. Bradshaw
8. Favre

Terry Bradshaw couldn't hold Favre's jockstrap.

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

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

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

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

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

[Patler]

7. Bradshaw
8. Favre

Terry Bradshaw couldn't hold Favre's jockstrap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KYPack]

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

Damn I wanted the Bengals to win that game.

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

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

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

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

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

BZZZZT

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

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

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

Anderson only started 9 games once in his career.

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

[Patler]

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

[The Leaper]

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

I agree.

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

Damn I wanted the Bengals to win that game.

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

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

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

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

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

BZZZZT

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

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

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

Anderson only started 9 games once in his career.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Patler]

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

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

[PackerBlues]

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

[The Leaper]

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

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

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

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