Best QB

[Robert Mason]

You are talking about consecutive games and interceptions right?

The main difference I see between BF and AR is that AR knows how to get rid of the ball when there is no open receiver. BF seemed to force the ball more to covered receivers resulting in more interceptions.

 

[swhitset]

Looking at all time records, it seems Testaverde is 8th, Bledsoe is 9th and Unitas is 10th in starts. Does anyone think Vinny is an all time great?

I do get what you are saying, but it really is not easy to just use simple stats to determine who is greatest. That is all I am trying to show. Favre was the most exciting QB (Majik was next most) to watch. Rodgers has been, until recently, the most amazingly accurate to see, Starr was the winningest we had, but different eras, different styles, different rules make it impossible to absolutely choose one. Lynn ****ey was great to watch. Just so much difference in how the game is today from the 60's until now. We have been blessed with some great QB play. I am just happy we have what we have right now.

I'm not sure where you got your stats, but I don't see Testaverde on the list at all.... You do realize this is a consecutive starts record right ? This means that they never missed a game... that is why the record is such a big deal. Testaverde played for 21 years and had a lot off starts for seven different teams, but if you check the Wikipedia page for this record it goes all the way down to a four way tie for 23rd place... Testaverde is not on this list. Bledsoe is also not on this list.. Brett Favre is number 1 with 297 regular season starts plus 24 playoff starts totaling 321. Peyton Manning is 2nd with 227. Eli is number 3 with 201. Eli will have to play for about 7 more years give or take a few playoff games without getting hurt or benched to catch Favre. He is 35 years old...

 

[British Packer]

So from what your all saying. Starr was the greatest.

 

[Quientus]

Bart Starr was great, and as Favre a Great Leader, however, he played in an era with little competition and fierce tackling. Starr also benefitted from having - probably - one of the GOAT coaches.

Favre besides being a Great statistical QB also showed true leadership on the field. Favre (seemingly) were able to make his team mates better. Only one losing season in his 20 years playing is a testament to that fact. Favre also played in an era were 3500+ yds were far apart for many QBs in the League - due to defenders being allowed to do more amo (as previously stated by other posters) - and No other player then and now were as tough as Favre, able to take the worst of beatings, but still suit up - also through most of his career Favre wasn't surrounded with the most talented team (1996-97 team excluded) except in 2007 ...

Rodgers is an extremely talented and gifted QB, but he lacks leadership ... and is known to be overly sensitive and arrogant ... Yes Rodgers throws for 4K+ yds almost every season and very few ints, however, in these days QBs throwing for up to 4K and above are not rare, most upper echelon QBs will hit that mark most seasons in todays League. Rodgers has had the benefit of playing on some pretty talented teams, and many consider him among the very Best in the League, if ever ...

Of the 3 - comparatively - I still consider Favre the Greatest QB the Packers had ever had and probably ever will and top 3 GoaT despite only having won 1 SB ...

I know ppl will disagree, but that's my opinion :-P

 

[Packer Brother]

Rodgers career isn't complete yet. Rodgers is more accurate, better scrambler, doesn't have a tendency to throw critical interceptions ( 01 Rams game, 03 Eagles playoff, 07 Giants, 09 Saints games come to mind for Favre). Favre obviously was more durable, could make something out of nothing ( TD pass to Share in Detroit, Final game County Stadium). At this point, Favre is better simply because he played 16 seasons here vs 9 for Rodgers.

As others have mentioned, Starr is the greatest. Championships are tough to ignore. Starr truly made Lambeau field a home field advantage. Favre did for the first ten years, after that? Not so much. Rodgers hasn't made Lambeau a tough place to play at all. Two home playoff losses ( To the likes of Manning, Kaep).

 

[Curly Calhoun]

# of titles is an overrated stat for measuring greatness. By that measure, Tom Brady's "greatness" was enhanced when Pete Carrol got cute and called a pass rather than let Marshawn Lynch run the ball; had nothing to do with Brady and yet he gets credit.

Now, I don't measuring Favre vs Rodgers because they played in comparable eras but trying to compare any QB in today's NFL to a QB when Starr played is an exercise in creating arguments with no point. Players across eras just can't be compared. Starr was amazing but the other side can, correctly, point out that Starr didn't face the complicated defenses of today's game. Then the Starr supporters will come back that players back then were allowed to legally eviscerate players on the field while also making inappropriate comments about their wives. Then the guys that want to support today's players will say that today's players are all a cross between Usain Bolt and the Hulk while the guys playing back then were Popeye minus the spinach...it just doesn't end!

To lead a team to a championship is not as easy thing to do (ask any Vikings fan). The ring is the thing.

There are a lot of reasons to believe Starr is the best of the three Green Bay legendary quarterbacks. The championships are the cherry on top.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I don't think evaluating a player by world championships is a valid measure.

Sure it is. It's a factor. Everyone who plays the game is trying to win a world championship, and quarterback is the most important position on the field. Quarterbacks with multiple championships have to be considered among the best, and they are.

 

[Quientus]

Rodgers is more accurate ... yes, however, todays rules favor the passing game ... Compare the overall accuracy in todays league with those from 1993-2004/2006
- you'll find that the overall accuracy among most QBs have skyrocketed across the board in todays nfl compared to the former era ... just look at Favres 2009 stats at the age of 40 ...

Yes Favre threw more ints, but he also rallied his team(s) more often to come back Wins than Rodgers or Staubach ...

We can agree to disagree, however, using Rodgers accuracy as an argument or Favres ints in some games were his teams were losing doesnt justify the claim that Rodgers is better imho ...

 

[grampi]

Sure it is. It's a factor. Everyone who plays the game is trying to win a world championship, and quarterback is the most important position on the field. Quarterbacks with multiple championships have to be considered among the best, and they are.

Do you think Brady is a better QB than Marino was?

 

[grampi]

Let's not forget, the AR most of us are referring to is the AR that WAS playing well...the way he's playing right now doesn't stack up to any of these other QBs...I also think many of you assume he will go back to playing like that again, which may not happen...

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Do you think Brady is a better QB than Marino was?

Yes. Marino had great stats, but only got to one Super Bowl. Brady, Montana, Bradshaw, Starr.....their accomplishments speak for themselves.

Championships aren't the only criteria for rating quarterbacks, but it's an important factor. The object of the game is to win, not pile up great stat lines.

 

[grampi]

Yes. Marino had great stats, but only got to one Super Bowl. Brady, Montana, Bradshaw, Starr.....their accomplishments speak for themselves.

Championships aren't the only criteria for rating quarterbacks, but it's an important factor. The object of the game is to win, not pile up great stat lines.

There's also playing ability, which I think is the MOST important factor, and I think Marino had that in spades over Brady, as well as many other QBs did...SB wins are more a result of the TEAM effort rather than an individual player...

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Sure it is. It's a factor. Everyone who plays the game is trying to win a world championship, and quarterback is the most important position on the field. Quarterbacks with multiple championships have to be considered among the best, and they are.

Qbs with multiple championships are just QBs who were very good but had a very good team around them. While I'm sure Marino doesn't appreciate it, he really took one for the greater good. He's the living proof that # of titles doesn't really mean much when looking at how great a QB is. RINGZZZ are helpful when trying to support a position but they don't actually create the position.

Another great example: Peyton Manning is terrible in the playoffs while Tom Brady becomes a human Voltron of He-Man, Spiderman and Einstein....yet, in the playoffs, Manning has a higher completion percent, threw fewer INTs and had a higher yards per attempt; Brady has the advantage in TDs. Could it just be that Brady has consistently had better teams around him than Peyton? That maybe Brady isn't that much better than Manning but that the easy, lazy narrative is that Brady has more titles so he must be better (it also helps that Brady has Gronk for his most recent run).

 

[Robert Mason]

Sure it is. It's a factor. Everyone who plays the game is trying to win a world championship, and quarterback is the most important position on the field. Quarterbacks with multiple championships have to be considered among the best, and they are.

Championships are a team accomplishment......not an individual accomplishment.

 

[Robert Mason]

So from what your all saying. Starr was the greatest.

Starr was a great play caller and team leader, but not necessarily a great passer. He does not have the fantastic statistics of some of the recent QB's. You have to remember also that the game is different than in Starr's time. It is more pass intensive now which pumps up QB statistics. Another difference is that QB's don't call the plays anymore. One of the outstanding qualities of Arron Rodgers is that he has the option to change the play called based on what he sees the defenses showing. So bottom line is yes, Bart Starr was a great QB in his time, but it is hard to compare him to today's QB's. As I remember back in the 60's there were comparisons between Bart Starr and Johnny Unitas. It was the same story....Unitas had better passing stats while Starr was the better play caller and team leader.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

I agree, Unless we want to say Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, etc... sucked

I am guessing that the OP meant Packers QB's. Not looking at stat's, I have to say, the most fun QB I got to watch was Favre. Good, bad or indifferent, it was never dull. You never knew what that crazy southern boy was going to do! (And neither did he).

DS

 

[Half Empty]

Do you think Brady is a better QB than Marino was?

As before, sure he is. Almost certainly not a better passer, though.

 

[Half Empty]

Championships are a team accomplishment......not an individual accomplishment.

Super Bowl XLV - same Packer team, but replace Rodgers with anyone but Brady. Think they still win?

 

[Robert Mason]

Super Bowl XLV - same Packer team, but replace Rodgers with anyone but Brady. Think they still win?

Peyton Manning, Rothlesberger, Brees, Russel Wilson........Yes

 

[swhitset]

So from what your all saying. Starr was the greatest.

Talk about selective reading..... I'll say they are all great QBs..... my Opinion... Favre. However, I am just Happy that all 3 played/play for the Pack.

 

[Half Empty]

As before, sure he is. Almost certainly not a better passer, though.

Interested in hearing why Marino should be considered a superior QB. Obviously can't be a prevailing argument, but even subjectively. I know my biggest criterion is championships (as a subset of the "it" factor), but what did Marino bring to the table (again, as a QB, not a passer) that Brady hasn't/doesn't?

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Championships are a team accomplishment......not an individual accomplishment.

No argument. The quarterback position, however, is the most valuable position, and to win multiple championships, you need a superior quarterback.

Again, not the only factor, but an important one.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

As before, sure he is. Almost certainly not a better passer, though.

Brady has much better hair than Marino. That right there overrides the fact that Marino was the better passer. There's a lot of factors that go into QB evaluation, passing the ball is only one relatively unimportant factor among many.

 

[swhitset]

Brady has much better hair than Marino. That right there overrides the fact that Marino was the better passer. There's a lot of factors that go into QB evaluation, passing the ball is only one relatively unimportant factor among many.

I was with you until you said Passing was relatively unimportant for a QB.... I agree that things like leadership, intelligence, the ability to remain calm under pressure etc.... are also important, but to negate the importance of being able to throw an accurate ball to any area of the field, is going a bit too far.

 

[Robert Mason]

No argument. The quarterback position, however, is the most valuable position, and to win multiple championships, you need a superior quarterback.

Again, not the only factor, but an important one.

Yes, It sure helps to have a superior QB.