Top 5 quarterbacks all time

[rmilia1]

Pretty interesting idea you came up with. Have you seen someone else do this? And so all measureables are equally weighted? This could be interesting. It obviously needs some tweaking though.

Yep equally weighted. I considered playoff wins as a variable, win pct, total wins etc etc but I thought the ones I used were relevant and Im at work so dont have too much time. I may tweak later. I like the list though. Its solid. Havent seen anyone else do it but its the same premise as ballots for the top 25 in CFB or whatever except these arent opinion, they are fact.

 

[HammerDown]

Jim Kelly, Steve Young, Tom Brady, Kurt Warner and Big Ben are not in my list.

The only one who deserves consideration is Brady IMO but I'm going to have to leave him off my list considering all the talent he was surrounded with and yet was negligible in the Super Bowl. Trent fucking Dilfer could have won a handful of rings with the talent Brady was surrounded with. So I'm going to have to respectfully disqualify him.

 

[eric5577x]

Please take Brady off your list...He does not belong there!! WTF is wrong with everyone....

 

[Clayton]

This isn't the 5 on 5 best of 7 series NBA so I'm not measuring QBs by rings.

1. Rodgers
2. Brady
3. Peyton
4. Unitas
5. Marino

 

[Clayton]

Trent fucking Dilfer could have won a handful of rings with the talent Brady was surrounded with.

So I take it that you aren't high on Montana or Young, either?

 

[Blackshirt]

There are 'team' quarterbacks and 'individual' quarterbacks.

Easy example....

Peyton Manning is an individual quarterback, he is great because of how well he plays. He's had some good teams, and some bad teams, regardless Peyton has always had to make plays. He never has a defense to help him win championships.

Tom Brady is a team quarterback, he is great because of the coaching and system he is in. Surrounded by a great team too. Would he be as successful without Belichick or the great defense the Pats had in the early/mid 00's?


Top 5 of all time? How is it weighted? By 'team success' or making 'individual plays/talent?'

 

[HammerDown]

Yep equally weighted. I considered playoff wins as a variable, win pct, total wins etc etc but I thought the ones I used were relevant and Im at work so dont have too much time. I may tweek later. I like the list though. Its solid. Havent seen anyone else do it but its the same premise as ballots for the top 25 in CFB or whatever exceot these arent opinion, they are fact.

But Brees and Favre are above Montana. Something's not right. I'd drop SB MVP's, yards, pass tds, comp% and maybe triple the weight of QBR. It'd be fun to come up with a spreadsheet to see what effect changing the weights would have on the list.

 

[HammerDown]

So I take it that you aren't high on Montana or Young, either?

Obviously high on Montana but not Young.

 

[Smart]

The only top 10 list Aikman made was SB wins. He has 9 points. I gave consideration to giving double points for SB wins but then Brady would be number 1 and your head would explode LOL

Aikman is among the most overrated players ever. Look at his stats. The most AV he ever had in a year was a year where he threw for 200 YPG, 23 TDs, and 14 Interceptions. And he did this behind the best line in football with the best RB in football, and a top 5 receiving corp.

At best, Aikman was slightly above average.

 

[Clayton]

Obviously high on Montana

Why? He had one of the best offensive minds of all time and the best WR of all time. Also had the benefit of playing in a time when deeper rosters allowed for stronger teams

 

[rmilia1]

But Brees and Favre are above Montana. Something's not right. I'd drop SB MVP's, yards, pass tds, comp% and maybe triple the weight of QBR. It'd be fun to come up with a spreadsheet to see what effect changing the weights would have on the list.

Thatd move Aaron Rodgers to number 1, Manning to 2, Young to 3, Brady to 4, Montana to 5 and Phillip Rivers to 6... LOL. Tony Romo would also crack the top 10.

 

[MrMoJoRisin63]

Sorry mojo. You don't know what you're talking about. When the rules changed to make passing easier, QB stats rose dramatically. That wasn't because the QBs all of the sudden got better. Another thing you ignore is that offensive players they'd be throwing the ball to back then were no better physically than the defensive ones guarding them. The OL guys protecting were no better than the DL guys putting on the pressure. The only difference was the rules. The OL wasn't allowed to grab & hold and the DBs could beat up the WRs until the ball was in the air.

I know exactly what I am talking about and I do not agree with your assesment. Offensive players were more gifted athletes back in the day, colleges were interested in scoring lots of points and targeted faster athletic guys to play offense to accomdate that. Defenses didn't really catch up until the late 70s or so. Becauase WRs were faster and more athletic coaches exploited slower defenses. I know I watched it.

 

[Clayton]

For those that think that Brady has been surrounded with talent, look at the team he has now. Its a 2-14 Rams team with Bellichick instead of Spagnuolo and Brady instead of Bradford.

 

[HammerDown]

Why? He had one of the best offensive minds of all time and the best WR of all time. Also had the benefit of playing in a time when deeper rosters allowed for stronger teams

He was the undisputed leader of that team and the face of the franchise. And he won. Manning, Jr. didn't beat him in the Super Bowl and he didn't cuss out reporters after game-ending INTs. He maximized the talent he was surrounded with and won.

 

[Brasky]

Rivers is teh best evarr

 

[HammerDown]

For those that think that Brady has been surrounded with talent, look at the team he has now. Its a 2-14 Rams team with Bellichick instead of Spagnuolo and Brady instead of Bradford.

The Brady excuses will never end.

So take your pick and stick with one or the other.

Either...

"Brady can turn any player into a Superstar"

or...

"Brady can't win unless he's drowning in talent."

 

[HammerDown]

Rivers is teh best evarr

Talent-wise he's one of the best ever. Like Peyton he's suffered from a lack of surrounding talent and organizational stability.

 

[eric5577x]

The Brady excuses will never end.

So take your pick and stick with one or the other.

Either...

"Brady can turn any player into a Superstar"

or...

"Brady can't win unless he's drowning in talent."

I think that is a matter of opinion, everyone's is going to be different.

 

[Clayton]

And he won.

Big deal. Trent Dilfer could have won with that team.

Circular arguments on here...

 

[Money]

I know exactly what I am talking about and I do not agree with your assesment. Offensive players were more gifted athletes back in the day, colleges were interested in scoring lots of points and targeted faster athletic guys to play offense to accomdate that. Defenses didn't really catch up until the late 70s or so. Becauase WRs were faster and more athletic coaches exploited slower defenses. I know I watched it.

Got it. That's why in 1960 teams averaged a whopping 170/yds per game passing. Can you imagine if teams were able to be that successful throwing the ball in today's game?