Top QBs of All-Time

[The Leaper]

Schatz was very impressive (to me), I think you are foolish to just dismiss an objective analysis.

An analysis of data that is "most closely tied to winning" seems rather unobjective to me. Who the hell makes the rules on what is most closely tied to winning.

Using individual stats alone, without any barometer for the talent level of the team around the QB, is a foolish way to determine who is a better QB. Sure, QBs on more talented teams are going to do more to win...because they have the talent around them to utilize efficiently. That is all you are proving in something like that.

Of course, I'm getting this second hand. For all I know, Schatz did a more objective analysis...but from the sound of it, he didn't. No one in their right mind would consider Bart Starr a better QB than Favre. Yes, he won more. That doesn't make you a better QB. Perhaps he was saying Starr was more efficient...I could see that.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Schatz was very impressive (to me), I think you are foolish to just dismiss an objective analysis.

An analysis of data that is "most closely tied to winning" seems rather unobjective to me. Who the hell makes the rules on what is most closely tied to winning.

Using individual stats alone, without any barometer for the talent level of the team around the QB, is a foolish way to determine who is a better QB. Sure, QBs on more talented teams are going to do more to win...because they have the talent around them to utilize efficiently. That is all you are proving in something like that.

Of course, I'm getting this second hand. For all I know, Schatz did a more objective analysis...but from the sound of it, he didn't. No one in their right mind would consider Bart Starr a better QB than Favre. Yes, he won more. That doesn't make you a better QB. Perhaps he was saying Starr was more efficient...I could see that.

I watched Bart Starr for 16 years and Brett Favre for all of his time in Green Bay. I guarantee you Bart Starr was a better playcaller than Brett Favre. You will answer that Favre doesn't call plays. See? So much of this comparing generations stuff just doesn't translate.

I never saw Starr panic under fire or succumb to pressure. I saw him get sacked countless times rather than throw a "gamble" pass. It was frustrating watching sometimes, but it was an efficient and winning strategy. Starr also stayed in the pocket and threw many a pass knowing he was gonna get creamed. In many ways Starr and Favre are similar as QB's in terms of toughness and courage. Starr got injured more because he was physically weaker than Favre. Starr wasn't a gunslinger like Favre. He was more Montana-like.

Whether Starr is ranked above Favre or visa versa, who can say? That's why we have bar room discussions to settle the matter. ( ) All I know is that it's been a privilege to watch both great QB's wear Green and Gold.

However -- and this is the bar room part and unfair as well because younger people on this board were not able to see Starr play -- if I had to choose one as my QB in a "must win" game even today, I'd choose Bart Starr (provided Starr and not McCarthy calls the plays).

This is by no means a knock against Favre. It's more a deep respect for Bart Starr's coolness under fire.

Of course, the other possibility is that I might not be in my right mind. Ha! Ha!! You!!! In the tennis shoes!!! Get out of the pool!!!

[The Shadow]

Schatz was very impressive (to me), I think you are foolish to just dismiss an objective analysis.

An analysis of data that is "most closely tied to winning" seems rather unobjective to me. Who the hell makes the rules on what is most closely tied to winning.

Using individual stats alone, without any barometer for the talent level of the team around the QB, is a foolish way to determine who is a better QB. Sure, QBs on more talented teams are going to do more to win...because they have the talent around them to utilize efficiently. That is all you are proving in something like that.

Of course, I'm getting this second hand. For all I know, Schatz did a more objective analysis...but from the sound of it, he didn't. No one in their right mind would consider Bart Starr a better QB than Favre. Yes, he won more. That doesn't make you a better QB. Perhaps he was saying Starr was more efficient...I could see that.

I watched Bart Starr for 16 years and Brett Favre for all of his time in Green Bay. I guarantee you Bart Starr was a better playcaller than Brett Favre. You will answer that Favre doesn't call plays. See? So much of this comparing generations stuff just doesn't translate.

I never saw Starr panic under fire or succumb to pressure. I saw him get sacked countless times rather than throw a "gamble" pass. It was frustrating watching sometimes, but it was an efficient and winning strategy. Starr also stayed in the pocket and threw many a pass knowing he was gonna get creamed. In many ways Starr and Favre are similar as QB's in terms of toughness and courage. Starr got injured more because he was physically weaker than Favre. Starr wasn't a gunslinger like Favre. He was more Montana-like.

Whether Starr is ranked above Favre or visa versa, who can say? That's why we have bar room discussions to settle the matter. ( ) All I know is that it's been a privilege to watch both great QB's wear Green and Gold.

However -- and this is the bar room part and unfair as well because younger people on this board were not able to see Starr play -- if I had to choose one as my QB in a "must win" game even today, I'd choose Bart Starr (provided Starr and not McCarthy calls the plays).

This is by no means a knock against Favre. It's more a deep respect for Bart Starr's coolness under fire.

Maxie : You are an astute poster. Could not agree with you more.
I was lucky enough to fully follow Starr's career, and there was never a cooler, smarter quarterback.
His Ice Bowl drive in impossible conditions against a very good opponent stands - at least in my opinion - as the greatest, gutsiest performance I've ever seen.

[Cheesehead Craig]

The problem with Sal is that he uses a double standard. For Barry Sanders, he mentions the running ability, but then dismisses it as a product of the dome. Then for Deion Sanders, he's praised for being a "magician" with his running style.

Plus, you can tell that he's mad how Barry left the game and that clearly colors his analysis. Gotta love writers who go an make up a list like this just to get pub.

[Harlan Huckleby]

An analysis of data that is "most closely tied to winning" seems rather unobjective to me. Who the hell makes the rules on what is most closely tied to winning.

that part is simple, requires no judgements. just see how each QB stat correlates with winning (looking at ALL QBs).

[Freak Out]

Bart Starr is the reason I became a packer fan in the first place and his game demeanor has only been matched by Montana. Just pure gridiron cool. Favre is the exact opposite of the Starr/Montana field general...a powerful fearless berserker almost...Thor under center.

[ZachMN]

I think I have seen that special about Sammy Baugh. After watching it I absolutely loved the guy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this but I believe he played both ways i.e. he was what we'd now call a corner back but then it was just a 'back'. I thinkthey showed him throwing the ball through a tire that was swinging back and forth....


Awesome thread.

[KYPack]

I think I have seen that special about Sammy Baugh. After watching it I absolutely loved the guy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this but I believe he played both ways i.e. he was what we'd now call a corner back but then it was just a 'back'. I thinkthey showed him throwing the ball through a tire that was swinging back and forth....


Awesome thread.

Baugh was a safety and an excellent one. He lead the NFL in interceptions one season.

He was also a great punter, he still ranks as the all time NFL punting leader.

He is a player who would have been great in any era.

[The Leaper]

However -- and this is the bar room part and unfair as well because younger people on this board were not able to see Starr play -- if I had to choose one as my QB in a "must win" game even today, I'd choose Bart Starr (provided Starr and not McCarthy calls the plays).

This is by no means a knock against Favre. It's more a deep respect for Bart Starr's coolness under fire.

Perhaps.

But it is DAMN EASY to make playcalls when you had the talent around you that Bart Starr did...and defenses were not anything close to the confusing units they are today.

I think you discount just how much the game has changed. I'm not saying Starr was a lousy QB. I never got to see him personally, but I can tell from the film I see today and the stuff I've read that he was a fierce competitor and unrivaled field general. I'm as proud of Bart Starr as I am Brett Favre. They both are all-time greats...and we are lucky to have both of them.

What Favre has done in the modern era is truly remarkable, and the fact he has done it WITHOUT a coach like Lombardi and WITHOUT HOF caliber players like Hornung, Kramer, Taylor, etc makes it even more impressive to me.

I'm sorry, but there is no doubt in my mind that Bart Starr wouldn't come close to registering the accolades or wins that Favre has if he was placed in the same situation as Favre in 1992. Starr struggled notably in his first few seasons before Lombardi took the reins, where Favre immediately was a game-changer even with Kitrick Taylor on the field. However, I don't get the feeling that Favre would have faltered much if placed in control of that ridiculously talented 60s Packer dynasty. His talent is simply too great.

[Carolina_Packer]

Nuff Said!

[The Shadow]

However -- and this is the bar room part and unfair as well because younger people on this board were not able to see Starr play -- if I had to choose one as my QB in a "must win" game even today, I'd choose Bart Starr (provided Starr and not McCarthy calls the plays).

This is by no means a knock against Favre. It's more a deep respect for Bart Starr's coolness under fire.

Perhaps.

But it is DAMN EASY to make playcalls when you had the talent around you that Bart Starr did...and defenses were not anything close to the confusing units they are today.

I think you discount just how much the game has changed. I'm not saying Starr was a lousy QB. I never got to see him personally, but I can tell from the film I see today and the stuff I've read that he was a fierce competitor and unrivaled field general. I'm as proud of Bart Starr as I am Brett Favre. They both are all-time greats...and we are lucky to have both of them.

What Favre has done in the modern era is truly remarkable, and the fact he has done it WITHOUT a coach like Lombardi and WITHOUT HOF caliber players like Hornung, Kramer, Taylor, etc makes it even more impressive to me.

I'm sorry, but there is no doubt in my mind that Bart Starr wouldn't come close to registering the accolades or wins that Favre has if he was placed in the same situation as Favre in 1992. Starr struggled notably in his first few seasons before Lombardi took the reins, where Favre immediately was a game-changer even with Kitrick Taylor on the field. However, I don't get the feeling that Favre would have faltered much if placed in control of that ridiculously talented 60s Packer dynasty. His talent is simply too great.

I would imagine you are under 50 years of age.

[MJZiggy]

I just wanted to mention that this is a GREAT thread...

[4and12to12and4]

I have held this opinion for the last few years. I think all in all, taking everything into consideration, you have to say Brett is the best ever. The record games in a row is a huge reason alone, but he also has all the statistics. Three MVP's. A Superbowl. And the most impressive thing besides the streak is that he has only that one losing season in all these years, with all these player and coaching changes. No other QB can boast that. We are the winninest football team in the last 13 years. No organization has more wins then us. That is mostly all Favre as the team and coaching around him gets shuffled every few years. Manning has stability. My god, I can't even imagine how many rings Brett would have if he had that team around him for 6 straight years, with almost no changes. Montana the same, the proof in that is how great Young looked when he replaced him. Compare that to how bad Young was in Tampa. Yes, a couple more rings would make this argument not even worth talking about. He would stand head and shoulders above all if he had two more rings. But, is it his fault he hasn't had a stable team around him for years and years to help him win more than one? Elway didn't win those two Superbowls, his running game did. He helped some, but many QB's could've won with the team he had around him. When you take in all the variables, I don't see how any other QB can be put above Brett, considering his ironman streak, all the winning seasons, and his unbelievable toughness and desire to win. He's the best ever in my book.

[4and12to12and4]

Just a reminder. Even Peyton Manning, as great as he is, had a horrible game last playoffs against the Ravens, and almost lost. His defense won that game and if Mcnair and Co. could've done ANTHING offensively, Manning would still be searching for that 1st ring. Favre had much better competition against him in the NFC in the 90's than there is today, and he still took us to the playoffs almost every single year. Look at Aikman, they rebuild and he goes 1-15. Marino had many a losing season and a lot of 8-8 type years also. A lot of Elways teams were losing teams. Favre is the only guy that kept his team winning through rebuild after rebuild. Manning has many winning seasons under him, but let's see what happens if he loses his line, receivers, backs, etc.. That will be his 1st true test. Brady has always had that great defense to rely on and help him win. Last year, he did have few good offensive weapons, but the defense kept him in the games. Favre has had winning seasons with porous defenses where he had to game after game outscore the opponent, and did. OK, that's all I got.