Ranking the NFL QBs

[Ogsponge]

One significant point of difference Osponge is that the analysis considers the time remaining. In other words, if we're evaluating the QB specifically, you have to give him credit when he performs successfully late in a game only to have his defense fail him as time expires. 7 of Rodgers' 17 successes were instances where he delivered a comeback only to see his defense fail on the last possession of the game where he had no opportunity to come from behind again in that game.

By comparison, Brady's defense failed him on the last possession of the game only 3 of his 45 successes.

Okay now I understand where you are getting 17 from!

 

[Packerlover]

My top 5:
#1 Rodgers, he's the best of the best!
#2 Brady
#3 Manning (Payton)
#4 Luck
#5 Brees

 

[HardRightEdge]

Is it becoming clear that the Seattle defensive collapse is the culmination of a trend? There is a cultural problem that cannot be laid at the feet of one player or another.

 

[ivo610]

Where do you think Johnny Unitas fits in?

My bad, I should have included him as he has an argument just as good as any of the others.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So do you think that 5-24 record is just an anomaly and not a disturbing truth?

I consider this record to be an anomaly which as vince has pointed out has a lot to do with the defense failing to protect a lead late in games.

Rodgers is ranked fifth in the NFL among starters in QB rating when trailing by a score since he became the starter and second (behind Tony Romo) over the last four season when he started to improve his play in situations like that.

 

[Half Empty]

That's my point. Peyton Manning is a better QB than Tom Brady. The fact that Manning is 11-13 in the postseason while Brady is 21-8 doesn't supersede the fact that Manning has been a better QB in pretty much every way. Why is it a positive for Brady that he's had the best coach in the NFL for his entire career (I think...most of his career at the least) and much better overall teams than Manning? It never gets brought up that Manning has more fourth quarter comebacks and game winning drives than Brady. All that matters is that Brady has a better postseason record...somehow the "tuck" rule and the Seahawks coaching blunder are positive attributes for Brady. Or that it helps Brady's legacy that he threw for less than 150 yards in 27 attempts in his first Super Bowl win while the Rams turned the ball over 3 times and the Pats ran the ball to win.

OK, now I think we're into the old semantics/definition problem. Are we talking about the better passer or QB? If the former, I haven't got much of an argument. If the latter, you're starting to get too close to questioning Starr as a QB, and now we've got a problem. Personal opinion, but to me, the QB job isn't to put up stats but to win - do that, and you're at the top of my list.

 

[vince]

I'd say the best of the best win and deliver the production to carry the team to greatness. They do/did them in different ways and to varying degrees which makes the great debate endless.

Starr produced as much as the team needed him to, and his contributions extended far beyond passing stats. But beyond that, he came through big-time in the biggest games which adds to his legend.

One thing that's hardly debatable. The Packers have had the greatest reign of QB's in history - going all the way back to the days of Red Dunn, Arnie Herber & Cecil Isbell - and it's not even close.

 

[Ogsponge]

Is it becoming clear that the Seattle defensive collapse is the culmination of a trend? There is a cultural problem that cannot be laid at the feet of one player or another.

I don't think it is just the defense though, the defensive collapse was certainly the most spectacular collapse, but lets be honest here, the offense was not really worth a damn if that game either. Especially on those 3 and out drives at the end.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

OK, now I think we're into the old semantics/definition problem. Are we talking about the better passer or QB? If the former, I haven't got much of an argument. If the latter, you're starting to get too close to questioning Starr as a QB, and now we've got a problem. Personal opinion, but to me, the QB job isn't to put up stats but to win - do that, and you're at the top of my list.

To win a football game you need a better team. According to your definition Russell Wilson and Eli Manning are better QBs than Aaron Rodgers, both have been to more Super Bowls than Rodgers (in Eli's case he's won one more).

And this has no bearing on Starr, you obviously can only compare QBs with other players of their eras. I agree that comparing passing numbers for Starr to today's QBs would be stupid, it has no relevance.

 

[ivo610]

To win a football game you need a better team. According to your definition Russell Wilson and Eli Manning are better QBs than Aaron Rodgers, both have been to more Super Bowls than Rodgers (in Eli's case he's won one more).

And this has no bearing on Starr, you obviously can only compare QBs with other players of their eras. I agree that comparing passing numbers for Starr to today's QBs would be stupid, it has no relevance.

The fact that Starr's playoff QB rating is still one of the highest in nfl history is remarkable and speaks to his place in history

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The fact that Starr's playoff QB rating is still one of the highest in nfl history is remarkable and speaks to his place in history

Starr actually has the best playoff passer rating of all-time at 104.8.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

I'd say the best of the best win and deliver the production to carry the team to greatness. They do/did them in different ways and to varying degrees which makes the great debate endless.

Starr produced as much as the team needed him to, and his contributions extended far beyond passing stats. But beyond that, he came through big-time in the biggest games which adds to his legend.

One thing that's hardly debatable. The Packers have had the greatest reign of QB's in history - going all the way back to the days of Red Dunn, Arnie Herber & Cecil Isbell - and it's not even close.

I agree. The great QBs are measured by championships, how they perform in the post season. That's why Peyton Manning isn't in my top 5, or Favre for that matter. Most people don't like to admit it, but Terry Bradshaw is way up there with I think 5 rings but that might be off by 1. Regardless, the great ones carry their teams, or are at least expected to. That may not always be fair, but it goes with the job. Trent Dilfer has the same number of SB rings as Favre and Peyton Manning. Don't get me wrong "TD" is not even close to being in their class, just sayin. And then there's Marino and Jim Kelly. Great, great QBs, just not when it counts the most.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

The top 4 is about right but 1 and 2 need to be flipped.
And nobody has had to do more with less than Rodgers unless they are strictly talking about wide receivers.
Take Rodgers out of the equation and the Packers are no better than 8-8 and both McCarthy and Thompson are both gone.
I don't believe taking Brady out of the picture will produce such dire consequences for the Patriots.

That's an interesting case to rank ARod over Brady. I'm undecided. On past performance Brady wins, and he has had to work with a number of different WRs. ARod has always been surrounded by talent.

If the question is who is the QB you'd most like to have right now, then ARod wins. Brady is still playing well and has the rings, but he clearly cheats. I don't think that means they wouldn't have won all those SBs if they were playing with regulation balls. It will always haunt conversations of just how great Brady was.

So I'd say ARod belongs at the top of this list. The Pats have proven they can win without Brady. As you point out, the Packers are a .500 club without Rodgers. That's why he was MVP last year, and why he continues to be the best QB in football.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree. The great QBs are measured by championships, how they perform in the post season. That's why Peyton Manning isn't in my top 5, or Favre for that matter. Most people don't like to admit it, but Terry Bradshaw is way up there with I think 5 rings but that might be off by 1. Regardless, the great ones carry their teams, or are at least expected to. That may not always be fair, but it goes with the job. Trent Dilfer has the same number of SB rings as Favre and Peyton Manning. Don't get me wrong "TD" is not even close to being in their class, just sayin. And then there's Marino and Jim Kelly. Great, great QBs, just not when it counts the most.

While the QB is the most important position in football it´s a team game and Bradshaw (who won four Super Bowl) hugely benefitted from having a top 5 scoring defense (first once and second twice) every single time the Steelers won the Lombardi Trophy. Dilfer won the Super Bowl in 2000 because the defense, which still holds the record for fewest points allowed in a 16-game season, carried the team.

The total number of rings isn´t a great way to rank QBs.

That's an interesting case to rank ARod over Brady. I'm undecided. On past performance Brady wins, and he has had to work with a number of different WRs. ARod has always been surrounded by talent.

So I'd say ARod belongs at the top of this list. The Pats have proven they can win without Brady. As you point out, the Packers are a .500 club without Rodgers. That's why he was MVP last year, and why he continues to be the best QB in football.

The 2011 Colts finished 2-14 when Peyton was out for the season. Most teams struggle to play .500 football while missing their franchise QB, the 2008 Patriots were an anomaly.

 

[Ogsponge]

While the QB is the most important position in football it´s a team game and Bradshaw (who won four Super Bowl) hugely benefitted from having a top 5 scoring defense (first once and second twice) every single time the Steelers won the Lombardi Trophy. Dilfer won the Super Bowl in 2000 because the defense, which still holds the record for fewest points allowed in a 16-game season, carried the team.

The total number of rings isn´t a great way to rank QBs.

Really? What is your honest opinion of the top 10 QB's of all time? How many have never won a Super Bowl or Championship? How many have won multiple?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Really? What is your honest opinion of the top 10 QB's of all time? How many have never won a Super Bowl or Championship? How many have won multiple?

11 QBs have won multiple Super Bowls but I don't consider Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Jim Plunkett, Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning top 10 QBs of all time. Dan Marino, Jim Kelly and Fran Tarkenton could make the list without having won a Super Bowl.

 

[Ogsponge]

11 QBs have won multiple Super Bowls but I don't consider Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Jim Plunkett, Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning top 10 QBs of all time. Dan Marino, Jim Kelly and Fran Tarkenton could make the list without having won a Super Bowl.

I certainly agree with your not making the top 10 list except for Staubauch, I completely agree with Marino but putting either Kelly or Tarkenton in the top 10 at the expense of Staubach seems a bit crazy.

Brady, Montana, Unitas, Marino, Peyton, Elway, Staubach, Otto Graham, Brees, and Starr would be my top 10. Those are in no particular order other than I would have Brady and Montana 1 and 2 and Starr, Staubach, Brees would be 8, 9 and 10. My next 5 would become pretty muddy water with Favre, Kelly, Young, Tarkenton and quite frankly, Rodgers.

So I would have 3 in my top 15 but certainly not in the top 10. But I guess that is why we would have a difference of opinion on whether championships matter.

There are always going to outliers but I think it is a pretty darn good measuring stick. Of course in this day and age of the pass happy NFL it is getting tougher and tougher to make these kinds of list because of the ridiculous number today's QB's are putting up.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I certainly agree with your not making the top 10 list except for Staubauch, I completely agree with Marino but putting either Kelly or Tarkenton in the top 10 at the expense of Staubach seems a bit crazy.

Brady, Montana, Unitas, Marino, Peyton, Elway, Staubach, Otto Graham, Brees, and Starr would be my top 10. Those are in no particular order other than I would have Brady and Montana 1 and 2 and Starr, Staubach, Brees would be 8, 9 and 10. My next 5 would become pretty muddy water with Favre, Kelly, Young, Tarkenton and quite frankly, Rodgers.

So I would have 3 in my top 15 but certainly not in the top 10. But I guess that is why we would have a difference of opinion on whether championships matter.

There are always going to outliers but I think it is a pretty darn good measuring stick. Of course in this day and age of the pass happy NFL it is getting tougher and tougher to make these kinds of list because of the ridiculous number today's QB's are putting up.

I guess I just don't understand why QBs get all the credit while, in Brady and Montana's examples, the fact that they were on teams with the best coaches of their era doesn't factor into it nor does the overall strength of the team. Is the contention somehow that if Manning was coached by Belichik then Manning would still only have one title and Brady would have won four Super Bowls with Jim Mora?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I certainly agree with your not making the top 10 list except for Staubauch, I completely agree with Marino but putting either Kelly or Tarkenton in the top 10 at the expense of Staubach seems a bit crazy.

Brady, Montana, Unitas, Marino, Peyton, Elway, Staubach, Otto Graham, Brees, and Starr would be my top 10. Those are in no particular order other than I would have Brady and Montana 1 and 2 and Starr, Staubach, Brees would be 8, 9 and 10. My next 5 would become pretty muddy water with Favre, Kelly, Young, Tarkenton and quite frankly, Rodgers.

So I would have 3 in my top 15 but certainly not in the top 10. But I guess that is why we would have a difference of opinion on whether championships matter.

There are always going to outliers but I think it is a pretty darn good measuring stick. Of course in this day and age of the pass happy NFL it is getting tougher and tougher to make these kinds of list because of the ridiculous number today's QB's are putting up.

I think Super Bowl wins should be considered by making a list like that but it shouldn't be the most important factor either.

While there's some merit to not include Kelly and Tarkenton in the top 10 you having them within the next tier doesn't make it sound too crazy.

BTW there's no way Brees should be ranked ahead of Rodgers.

 

[Ogsponge]

I think Super Bowl wins should be considered by making a list like that but it shouldn't be the most important factor either.

While there's some merit to not include Kelly and Tarkenton in the top 10 you having them within the next tier doesn't make it sound too crazy.

BTW there's no way Brees should be ranked ahead of Rodgers.

He has the same amount of 5000 yard passing season as all others combined, lead to his team to a Superbowl win. I think he is deserving. By the way, I think A-Rod has two more seasons like all his past seasons and he easily vaults into the top 10 ahead many QB's.

 

[Ogsponge]

I guess I just don't understand why QBs get all the credit while, in Brady and Montana's examples, the fact that they were on teams with the best coaches of their era doesn't factor into it nor does the overall strength of the team. Is the contention somehow that if Manning was coached by Belichik then Manning would still only have one title and Brady would have won four Super Bowls with Jim Mora?

You really think those are the only determining factors? You think those coaches would have won all the Superbowls they did without Montana or Brady, I can unequivocally say not a chance. It goes both ways. McCarthy would be an after thought as a coach without Rodgers.

And why is that Packer fans want to always ignore the accomplishments of other QB's by saying things like you said? Just to make our guys look better? Our guys need to do better if they want to look better. I have said it many times and I will say it again, it is absolutely ridiculous that Rodgers and McCarthy have only been in one SB, until they get to another they are just another combination in a long line of one time Super Bowl Winners.

 

[Half Empty]

I guess I just don't understand why QBs get all the credit while, in Brady and Montana's examples, the fact that they were on teams with the best coaches of their era doesn't factor into it nor does the overall strength of the team. Is the contention somehow that if Manning was coached by Belichik then Manning would still only have one title and Brady would have won four Super Bowls with Jim Mora?

If we follow this to the logical conclusion, there shouldn't be any top 10 list except, perhaps, for teams (have to consider eras, competition, et. al.). No top 10 linemen, because of who was playing beside or behind them? No top 10 running back because of their OLine? As with most things sports, definitions are important. If one demands championships as a criterion for elite QBs, so be it. If someone else doesn't, fine, but it's not the same discussion any more.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He has the same amount of 5000 yard passing season as all others combined, lead to his team to a Superbowl win. I think he is deserving. By the way, I think A-Rod has two more seasons like all his past seasons and he easily vaults into the top 10 ahead many QB's.

I don't value Brees' 5,000 yards season as much as he attempted at least 635 throws during these four seasons. Rodgers has had a higher yards per attempt average than Brees' in every single one of the last five seasons.

 

[TJV]

Consider yesterday’s jsonline article regarding Rodgers vs. Brees:

■ Rodgers' career passer rating of 106.0 is No. 1 in NFL history for players with at least 1,500 passing attempts. Rodgers' rating is more than eight points ahead of second-place Tony Romo of Dallas (97.6).
■ Rodgers is the only quarterback in NFL history to record a 100-plus passer rating in six consecutive seasons (2009-'14). In fact, no other quarterback has accomplished that in more than four straight seasons.
■ Rodgers ranks No. 1 in NFL history in career interception percentage (1.64). He's also first in touchdown-to-interception ratio (226-to-57, 3.96%).
■ Rodgers ranks No. 3 all-time in completion percentage (65.8) and yards per attempt (8.22).
■ Rodgers is one of only three quarterbacks in NFL history to register two seasons with a 110-plus passer rating (2011, 2014). The other two are Peyton Manning (2007, 2013) and Tom Brady (2007, 2010).
■ Rodgers is the only quarterback in NFL history to register three seasons with 500-plus attempts and seven or fewer interceptions (2009, 2011, 2014). No other quarterback has done it more than once. Rodgers is also the only 4,000-yard passer in league history to throw six or fewer interceptions, having done it twice (2011, 2014).
■ At the end of the 2014 season, Rodgers had streaks of 418 consecutive passing attempts and 36 consecutive touchdown passes at home without an interception. Both are NFL records.
■ Rodgers has posted the top three single-season passer-rating marks at home in NFL history (minimum 100 attempts), highlighted by his NFL-record 133.2 rating in 2014. Rodgers also posted a 128.5 rating in 2011 and a 126.4 in 2013.
■ Rodgers has helped the Packers average 28.5 points per game in his 103 career regular-season starts. That's No. 1 among quarterbacks since 1950 (minimum 100 starts).
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...s-is-championships-b99539627z1-318073121.html

I left out his Packers records.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Consider yesterday’s jsonline article regarding Rodgers vs. Brees:

He's also first in touchdown-to-interception ratio (226-to-57, 3.96).

This to me is the most impressive one as he leads second placed Tom Brady (2.74) by a landslide. In total there are only nine QBs in NFL history with a TD/INT ratio of at least 2.00.