An interesting take on ranking all-time QB's

[KYPack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Patler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[b bulldog]

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

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

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

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

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

[b bulldog]

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

[b bulldog]

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

[b bulldog]

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

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

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

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

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

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

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

[Noodle]

I love this kind of stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I love this kind of stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

You have some excellent points.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Shadow]

I love this kind of stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

You have some excellent points.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I love this kind of stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

You have some excellent points.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Shadow]

I love this kind of stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

You have some excellent points.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I love this kind of stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

You have some excellent points.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Well, ignorance is bliss.

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

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

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