Elite Quarterbacks Started by Jeffrey Miller, Jul 08 2014 05

oldecapecod11 · Post by **oldecapecod11** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:20 pm

Elite Quarterbacks Started by Jeffrey Miller, Jul 08 2014 05:17 PM
Started by Jeffrey Miller, Jul 08 2014 05:17 PM

Archive

Page 1 of 3

41 replies to this topic

#1 Jeffrey Miller - PFRA Member
Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:17 PM
OK, what makes a quarterback truly elite? Does it transcend stats? Does it go beyond just winning a championship? Does one have to win multiple championships to be considered elite? If so, that leaves who? Bart Starr, John Unitas, Tom Brady, Otto Graham, Joe Montana, John Elway, Terry Bradshaw, Bob Griese (and so on ...) and would eliminate Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton (and so on). But what about the guys who had the gaudy stats and one at least one championship, like Brett Favre and Peyton Manning? Could one argue that Eli Manning is really better than Peyton based on this?

So what is your criteria for "elite"? With all of this talk about there being so many elite QBs in the game, I wonder how many of them truly are ...

#2 Jeremy Crowhurst - PFRA Member
Posted 08 July 2014 - 06:44 PM
If you're talking about how good the player was, then the performance of the team's defense and/or running game would seem to be irrelevant. The idea that Marino wasn't elite seems to fall outside the recognized definition of the term.

#3 Jeffrey Miller - PFRA Member
Posted 08 July 2014 - 07:27 PM
Agreed Jeremy, hence the question. Could you put Marino or Fouts in the same category as a Montana or Unitas or Brady? Would you count overall regular season record? It's a mystery, I tells ya!

#4 JohnH19 - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 July 2014 - 12:12 AM
To be elite is to be the best. As discussed here several times, and usually agreed to, the Mt. Rushmore of NFL QBs is Baugh, Graham, Unitas and Montana, with P. Manning and Brady having their chisels on order. Those six are best of all time therefore they are THE elite.

After that you have many great ones who, it can be argued, are at the next level; Marino, Favre, Elway, Tarkenton, Staubach, Luckman, etc..

Multiple championships can bring guys like Starr, Bradshaw, Dawson, Layne and Van Brocklin into a conversation of great QBs but a lack of championships shouldn't eliminate the likes of Marino, Tarkenton, Fouts, Jurgensen and Tittle from that same conversation. Those guys all played the position expertly for a long time.

Having said that; a title or two for Marino and Tarkenton would put them both into Mt. Rushmore consideration and another one or two would do the same for Favre.

Obviously, several factors have to be considered when evaluating QBs but at the end of the day it's all subjective.

#5 Jeremy Crowhurst - PFRA Member
Posted 09 July 2014 - 12:52 AM
There's always an unstated qualifier for "elite" - for what time period? The elite QBs of today is a fairly easy question, the guys at the top generally separate themselves from the rest of the pack, and do so consistently, such that there's a pretty clear consensus. Everyone would agree Manning and Brees, most would include Brady, a healthy majority would include Rodgers. The consensus probably ends there.

Looking at any kind of longer timeframe - the elite of all time, the elite QBs of the 80's, "was Dan Marino elite" - is a tougher question. Different eras required different skill sets. Right now, you're never going to be elite if you can't run a multiple-receiver offense (sorry, Cam Newton.). In the 60's and 70's play-calling might have been the most valuable skill. In the 50's, and the AFL, having the mechanics (accuracy most of all) might have been most important. It's impossible to weigh those things out across eras, so I think the idea of a QB Mt. Rushmore is a load of b.s. You just can't compare Baugh and Unitas to the modern-era guys. You might as well be comparing the linebackers of those eras to today's QBs.

#6 JohnH19 - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 July 2014 - 01:57 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 09 Jul 2014 - 12:52 AM, said:
There's always an unstated qualifier for "elite" - for what time period? The elite QBs of today is a fairly easy question, the guys at the top generally separate themselves from the rest of the pack, and do so consistently, such that there's a pretty clear consensus. Everyone would agree Manning and Brees, most would include Brady, a healthy majority would include Rodgers. The consensus probably ends there.

Looking at any kind of longer timeframe - the elite of all time, the elite QBs of the 80's, "was Dan Marino elite" - is a tougher question. Different eras required different skill sets. Right now, you're never going to be elite if you can't run a multiple-receiver offense (sorry, Cam Newton.). In the 60's and 70's play-calling might have been the most valuable skill. In the 50's, and the AFL, having the mechanics (accuracy most of all) might have been most important. It's impossible to weigh those things out across eras, so I think the idea of a QB Mt. Rushmore is a load of b.s. You just can't compare Baugh and Unitas to the modern-era guys. You might as well be comparing the linebackers of those eras to today's QBs.

Easy now, big fella. I agree that you can't compare players or teams from different eras or even seasons. The QBs I listed on Mt. Rushmore aren't being compared to anyone from other eras. They are chosen because they were all clearly the best of their day. The exception being that I call Manning and Brady a draw because they have both been so ridiculously good for so long.

#7 Jeremy Crowhurst - PFRA Member
Posted 09 July 2014 - 02:24 AM
JohnH19, on 09 Jul 2014 - 01:57 AM, said:
Easy now, big fella. I agree that you can't compare players or teams from different eras or even seasons. The QBs I listed on Mt. Rushmore aren't being compared to anyone from other eras. They are chosen because they were all clearly the best of their day. The exception being that I call Manning and Brady a draw because they have both been so ridiculously good for so long.

No, I hear you, and I recognize that people consider those four to be at the peak. But I also agree with you that it's subjective, and for me, I don't think anyone other than Otto Graham was so far ahead of his peers that he gets his face on a mountain.

It is an interesting discussion, though. How much, if anything, do you dock Montana for the considerable debt he owes Bill Walsh and Jerry Rice? Sammy Baugh was the best of his era, but who are you comparing him to? Most teams in the league weren't playing football yet, and then there's the affirmative-action nature of his statistics, as Chris Rock might say.

#8 conace21 - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 July 2014 - 08:37 AM
Montana won two Super Bowls without Rice. He won one title and one MVP award without Walsh, though he was still playing in the Walsh offense. He may not have won 4 Super Bowls if he had been drafted by Tampa Bay, but SF would not have won 4 championships with just anyone back there. Montana's cool demeanor, nimble feet, accuracy, and smarts all elevated Walsh's offense to another level. I don't dock Montana from Mt. Rushmore just because he landed in an offense that hid his weaknesses and highlighted his strengths.

Baugh took passing to a new level. Sid Luckman had more championships, but George Halas had compiled a ridiculous amount of talent on those Bears teams, including Luckman. And Baugh's Redskins still beat Chicago twice for championships.
I'm curious, if the other teams in the National Football League were not playing football, what were they playing?

#9 JohnH19 - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:00 AM
conace21, on 09 Jul 2014 - 08:37 AM, said:
Montana won two Super Bowls without Rice. He won one title and one MVP award without Walsh, though he was still playing in the Walsh offense. He may not have won 4 Super Bowls if he had been drafted by Tampa Bay, but SF would not have won 4 championships with just anyone back there. Montana's cool demeanor, nimble feet, accuracy, and smarts all elevated Walsh's offense to another level. I don't dock Montana from Mt. Rushmore just because he landed in an offense that hid his weaknesses and highlighted his strengths.

Baugh took passing to a new level. Sid Luckman had more championships, but George Halas had compiled a ridiculous amount of talent on those Bears teams, including Luckman. And Baugh's Redskins still beat Chicago twice for championships.
I'm curious, if the other teams in the National Football League were not playing football, what were they playing?

You said it better than I would have. I'm not sure that Montana had any weaknesses, though, because we never saw any. His arm was plenty strong enough to get the job done as any situation required.

Those who demean Montana and Brady because of the systems they've played in aren't seeing the forest for the trees. It's players that make systems work.

#10 97Den98 - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:14 AM
JohnH19, on 09 Jul 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:
You said it better than I would have. I'm not sure that Montana had any weaknesses, though, because we never saw any. His arm was plenty strong enough to get the job done as any situation required.

Those who demean Montana and Brady because of the systems they've played in aren't seeing the forest for the trees. It's players that make systems work.

I don't demean Montana as much for the system he played in. He was a System QB to a certain degree, but that's because he fit Walsh's offense really well.

As for Brady, though, he is more of a system QB than Montana was. Belichick wanted a guy for his offense that wouldn't make mistakes, and would play within the system, and Tom is perfect for that. He doesn't improvise as much as Joe did.

11 Bryan - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:17 AM
Jeffrey Miller, on 08 Jul 2014 - 7:27 PM, said:
Agreed Jeremy, hence the question. Could you put Marino or Fouts in the same category as a Montana or Unitas or Brady? Would you count overall regular season record? It's a mystery, I tells ya!

This may be a cop-out answer, but I think every QB is unique. To me, Marino is a much different QB than Fouts. I think you could make a case for Marino being the best QB of all-time. You cannot do the same for Fouts.

Many times these debates end up being extremes, where Marino becomes the standard bearer for the "compiler" QB while Bradshaw is the standard bearer for the "winner" QB, then the debate is "which type of QB is better?", almost as if the individual QBs are non-entities.

On a side note, I think Marino and Tarkenton are the most unfairly treated QBs. Even when they played, it seemed like people would wait for them to screw up and then point out how this screw up reinforces their idea that Marino throws too much or Tarkenton makes the big mistake. Both those guys were great QBs for a very long time. I think John Facenda put it best when he said "Like all Tarkenton teams, the Vikings could score...", which is kind of the point.

#12 26554 - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 July 2014 - 12:18 PM
Bryan, on 09 Jul 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:
This may be a cop-out answer, but I think every QB is unique. To me, Marino is a much different QB than Fouts. I think you could make a case for Marino being the best QB of all-time. You cannot do the same for Fouts.

Many times these debates end up being extremes, where Marino becomes the standard bearer for the "compiler" QB while Bradshaw is the standard bearer for the "winner" QB, then the debate is "which type of QB is better?", almost as if the individual QBs are non-entities.

On a side note, I think Marino and Tarkenton are the most unfairly treated QBs. Even when they played, it seemed like people would wait for them to screw up and then point out how this screw up reinforces their idea that Marino throws too much or Tarkenton makes the big mistake. Both those guys were great QBs for a very long time. I think John Facenda put it best when he said "Like all Tarkenton teams, the Vikings could score...", which is kind of the point.

I agree on Tarkenton. I think some (including some former teammates) discount him a little too much because of the SB losses. Marino...I don't know. It seems like there's been a lot of violin playing over the years about how he didn't have this and didn't have that. Not to say there isn't truth to it, but some of those playoff losses, he just didn't play well. The '85 AFC title game loss to NE comes to mind first.

#13 TanksAndSpartans - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 July 2014 - 02:15 PM
If this were a video game and I wanted a drop back passer, its probably hard not to take Marino especially the 84 version. Similarly if I wanted a scrambler and the early Falcons version of Vick was on the board. But if someone asked for my opinion on who were the greatest QBs, I may not mention Marino and Vick wouldn't cross my mind at all.

#14 Jeffrey Miller - PFRA Member
Posted 09 July 2014 - 06:25 PM
Imagine some kid, 15 or 16 years old, just starting to delve into football history and studying the great QBs of the game. He looks at Trent Dilfer and says, "Hhm, he must be pretty good cuz he won a Super Bowl." The he hears a friend mention how great Dan Marino was, and replies, "Yeah, but he never won a Super Bowl, so how good could he be?"

I was watching an episode of "The Middle" and the youngest son has been reading up on football history. He only got up to 1983. He says to his father, "Don't tell me anymore, but I have been reading a lot about this Dan Marino guy. I bet he won a lot of Super Bowls."

Despite never winning the big one, there can be no doubt that he ranks up there as elite. But is it more of a "feeling" or can you quantify it?

#15 oldecapecod 11 - PFRA Member
Posted 09 July 2014 - 08:00 PM
While I agree with 99-44/100 percent of what the various posters write about their favorites and sometimes find humor in the varying criteria to determine who belongs where. Some use "the coach," some gauge by "system," some swear by "stats" and "rings" and APs or UPs or IPs and some even measure a person by "how big a dick" a person wants to be.
Whatever... Does it really matter?
I think not.

During the film craze, I can recall reading issues and headlines past of the newspapers of the day and the various things they all said about the Titanic.

The one thing they all said was: She sank. Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? She sank.

All that mattered were two lists: Lost and Saved

There were bank balances large and small on both lists, there were varying social standings on both list, occupations, goal, hopes, dreams and on and on. It did not matter. What mattered was: Lost and Saved

We have that here.

HoF or not HoF

Do we need to create a hierarchy within that place? If so, let them do it. They will do as they will anyway. And, the as they will, you can be sure, will be what they are directed to do by the master they serve: the NFL

If you look carefully, you will see the beginnings of cracks in the foundation. They stray from their so-expressed maxim - their mission statement, if you will.
The recently begun 52 Theses - or whatever they call it - is reaching out by an entity that has faded from public interest.
And why? They have chased the public away.
Now they have a "talk show" they are promoting. They will all pledge allegiance to the "senate" and what can we do for ourselves lately. Do you really think that they are going to have you - yes, you - live and promoting a player they have already nixed? Of course not.

More and more, they show their desire for a large hall. Why? More people = more potential revenue.

When you go large; elite rapidly fades.

I would bet that half the membership here is within ten years of my age. I do not see great signs of growth. If we don't grow, will we be like those Bulldogs or Eskimos of yore and just fade away.
Where once the PFRA ruled, there are now 32 Forums frequented by people who know most of what they want to know about each of the 32 teams.
Time was, if I had a question, I posted it here and by day's the five or six or seven guys posted the answer. I notice now, there are questions that we have to ask others - outside the PFRA.
Example: the first 49er contract and signing. That data was sent to me from the 49er Q&A Forum.

So... this is THE elite organization of its kind. Let us keep it elite and not worry about creating tiers within another's walls.

Now... with all that out... here is what I think about "elite" and we must use the old "if bullfrogs had wings" principle...

IMO there is one QB that id head-and-shoulders above the rest.

Yes, Sammy could throw... no matter how long it took for his man to clear, he could reach him. He usually only had one alternate.
Yes, if I had one game to win, the man that could and would do it would be Johnny U.

But, if he had played in Bill Walsh system, and with even less of a supporting cast, Otto would have more records and more rings than RCA or Madonna.

And Joe... well, he would be among those whose name get nominated every now-and-again but never quite makes it.
Two other guys that would have flourished in that system are Staubach and Ken Anderson.

In closing, here is an amazing piece of trivia:
1 out of every 9.2 times (that's nine point two) Otto RAN the ball, it was for a Touchdown.
1 out of 9.2

#16 Jeremy Crowhurst - PFRA Member
Posted 09 July 2014 - 08:27 PM
You can quantify Marino: 20 years and 33%. The old record was 36 TDs from 20 years earlier. He beat it by 33%, then two years later he beat the (old) record by a substantial margin. Marino didn't have the Kurt Warner "doughnut" years we've been talking about in the other thread; he remained very good for the next decade.. Elite for three years at least, elite in terms of overall career.

#17 Jeremy Crowhurst - PFRA Member
Posted 09 July 2014 - 08:34 PM
The thing with Sammy is, he was playing in a league that didn't have that many teams, and not all teams had quarterbacks for much of his career. So if there were a bunch of years where he was the 2nd best QB in a league with only four or five QBs, is "elite" really the word? He was a legend, a pioneer, had one of the two or three best quotes ever.... But face-on-a-mountain level elite? I have trouble with that.

#18 rhickok1109 - PFRA Member
Posted 09 July 2014 - 09:41 PM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 09 Jul 2014 - 8:34 PM, said:
The thing with Sammy is, he was playing in a league that didn't have that many teams, and not all teams had quarterbacks for much of his career. So if there were a bunch of years where he was the 2nd best QB in a league with only four or five QBs, is "elite" really the word? He was a legend, a pioneer, had one of the two or three best quotes ever.... But face-on-a-mountain level elite? I have trouble with that.
He wasn't even a QB for the first half of his career. But he was a great punter and an outstanding defensive back, so how does that fit in?

#19 conace21 - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 July 2014 - 10:19 PM
Baugh was a single wing tailback for the first half of his career, but he was playing the role of a modern QB, so I don't discount that portion of his career when assessing his legacy. His play as a DB or P doesn't put him on the QB Mt. Rushmore (although it would probably help his case on the list of best overall players.)
Every team in the league had a QB (single wing TB) when Baugh played...although some of the QB's simply weren't very good and it was not a QB driven league. But it was tough to be good when you were always throwing on the run. Standing still would get a man killed. Baugh had to throw on the run as well...and he was accurate enough that he still managed to complete 54, 55% of his passes consistently.
For most of his career, Baugh was a top 2 QB, and for a good chunk of it, he was the best. Luckman beat him out for some All Pro Teams, but again, Luckman had outstanding talent around him.
There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to elite QB's. Very interesting hearing the different arguments though.

#20 Reaser - PFRA Member
Posted 09 July 2014 - 10:26 PM
I have the same four that John mentioned, and all I need to do is watch games that Baugh played in to confirm - for me - that he should be on that list.

Jeremy Crowhurst, on 09 Jul 2014 - 8:34 PM, said:
So if there were a bunch of years where he was the 2nd best QB in a league with only four or five QBs, is "elite" really the word?

This somewhat reminds me of a discussion we had here a few years back, I believe it was about a center when there was only 12-teams (don't quote me on that), but it was being said that being best or second best when there was only 12-teams wasn't as impressive and being the best when there was 32 teams. Which besides that you can only compare a player to his own era, didn't make sense since being the best (or second best) when there's 'only' 12 teams doesn't change the fact that you'd still be the best or second best if there were 32 teams, since it would be the backups on the 12 teams that would become starters for the extra 20 teams.

There's still a pool of players, the players not starting/playing - in theory - are already 'worse'. To use Baugh as the example, it's not like if the NFL expanded to 32 teams that Baugh would have magically become worse, he would have still been right where he was as either the best passer/QB or second best, wherever you want to put him.

Page 1 of 3
oldecapecod 11

Elite Quarterbacks
Started by Jeffrey Miller, Jul 08 2014 05:17 PM

Page 2 of 3

41 replies to this topic

#21 oldecapecod 11 - PFRA Member
Posted 09 July 2014 - 11:17 PM
Being 2nd Best when it was a 12-team league is far more impressive than being 2nd Best today.

Look at it this way.

When there were 12 teams - with, let's say, 40 men per team - that's 480 football players.
Arguably, but not much, they would be the 480 best football players in the world.
The worst player in the league would be the 480th best player in the world

With 32 teams. and call it 50 men per team, that's 1600 players.
Again, with little argument, the 1600 best football players in the world.
The 480th worst player in the league would be in the top 30% of the best football players in the world.

So, given that most teams have pretty much the same complement of position players, it stands to reason that the 2nd best at any position would be better in a 480 man league than in a 1600 man league.
It is irrefutable.

#22 Reaser - PFRA Member
Posted 09 July 2014 - 11:29 PM
I don't dispute the premise, but that's going bottom to top. e.g. the worst players on NFL rosters today wouldn't be on rosters in the 40's and 50's, which makes sense. If you go top to bottom though, 1 = 1, 2 = 2, etc ... So if all else was equal (there's separate debates to be had) being the best QB in 2014 is no different from being the best QB in 1954. If before the 2013 season the NFL contracted to 12 teams, Peyton Manning would have still been Peyton Manning, his skills wouldn't have magically eroded.

I view it similar to how I view championships, 2013 Seahawks are on the same list as the 1950 Browns, championships are championships. Being the best player is being the best player, etc ...

#23 Jeremy Crowhurst - PFRA Member
Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:14 AM
The game of football was in a period of transition. Every team had a center, every team had fullbacks. Not every team had a quarterback, not in any way resembling the way each team had quarterbacks by 1952. So being the best or second best simply isn't the same as it is when rveryone is playing the same game.

#24 oldecapecod 11 - PFRA Member
Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:42 AM
And if that is the only championship Seattle ever wins, they will always be the 2013 NFL Champions.
And it matters not who they beat and how, they will always be the 2013 NFL Champions.
And if Peyton Manning throws a football across the Grand Canyon, Seattle will always be the 2013 NFL Champions.
It is all just something for interested parties to discuss and disagree and have fun doing it.
Would the USS Bonhomme Richard of the Continental Navy defeat the USS Bonhomme Richard launched in the late 1990s?
Of course not!
Well, neither would the 1922 Oorang Indians defeat the 2014 Washington Redskins but sometimes it is fun to say "What if?"

#25 Reaser - PFRA Member
Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:57 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 10 Jul 2014 - 12:14 AM, said:
The game of football was in a period of transition. Every team had a center, every team had fullbacks. Not every team had a quarterback, not in any way resembling the way each team had quarterbacks by 1952. So being the best or second best simply isn't the same as it is when rveryone is playing the same game.
The sport is always in a period of transition, not every team has a FB now, not every team has a Jimmy Graham (whatever position people want to label him as playing), not every team has a NT, not every team lines up the same, not every team runs the same offense or defense, etc ... Just as now, everyone was playing the same sport then, playing it differently.

Either way, I get what you're saying, but you're position only adds up as a negative towards Baugh if you believe that had every team been running the exact same offense - because that always happens - that Baugh would have not been a top 2 QB (or however you rank him) ... Is that what you're saying? Because there was only - to quote you - "4 or 5" QB's, being the best isn't the same as if there was 10 QB's? That's where I differ, I've watched games, read about them, looked at the 'stats', he was that good, add 5 other QB's to the league and nothing changes, as with my example(s) if you add 20 teams to the league with 20 QB's he was still going to be "top 2" and/or rank similar to wherever you would have him ...

#26 Jeremy Crowhurst - PFRA Member
Posted 10 July 2014 - 01:40 AM
Reaser, on 10 Jul 2014 - 12:57 AM, said:
The sport is always in a period of transition, not every team has a FB now, not every team has a Jimmy Graham (whatever position people want to label him as playing), not every team has a NT, not every team lines up the same, not every team runs the same offense or defense, etc ... Just as now, everyone was playing the same sport then, playing it differently.
Either way, I get what you're saying, but you're position only adds up as a negative towards Baugh if you believe that had every team been running the exact same offense - because that always happens - that Baugh would have not been a top 2 QB (or however you rank him) ... Is that what you're saying? Because there was only - to quote you - "4 or 5" QB's, being the best isn't the same as if there was 10 QB's? That's where I differ, I've watched games, read about them, looked at the 'stats', he was that good, add 5 other QB's to the league and nothing changes, as with my example(s) if you add 20 teams to the league with 20 QB's he was still going to be "top 2" and/or rank similar to wherever you would have him ...

I think you'll agree that adding the forward pass as a regular part of the offensive game plan is a pretty significant change to the game of football, and it is a bigger deal than, well, pretty much anything else.

I don't mean this to sound like a knock against Sammy. He was a great player, as was Sid Luckman. I'm just saying, this is all why you can't compare him even to Otto Graham and certainly not Unitas. It's the same reason you can't compare Don Hutson to any of the great WRs who came later. Their situations were so different from those who came after them.

I appreciate your point about adding 5 more QBs, and Sammy would still be top-2. We do disagree here, on this unresolvable hypothetical. You say add 5, I'm going to just add one: Davey O'Brien decides to stay with the Eagles instead of joining the FBI. You can't say he wouldn't have surpassed Sammy if he'd stayed in the game, just as I can't say he would have. But it's possible. We can agree to disagree about whether there were other players who went to war, or who ended up with the Cardinals or Dodgers instead of the Packers or Eagles, who could have played the game at the same level if given the opportunity.

#27 Reaser - PFRA Member
Posted 10 July 2014 - 01:59 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 10 Jul 2014 - 01:40 AM, said:
I think you'll agree that adding the forward pass as a regular part of the offensive game plan is a pretty significant change to the game of football, and it is a bigger deal than, well, pretty much anything else.
Of course, the point was obviously that you can only judge players on what they did. What offense they were in is pretty much the Montana debate, for me I don't do 'what if', I solely judge him on what really happened since that's all there is. Plus numerous players succeeded or failed based on circumstances out of their control (e.g. what team they ended up with.)

Jeremy Crowhurst, on 10 Jul 2014 - 01:40 AM, said:
I don't mean this to sound like a knock against Sammy. He was a great player, as was Sid Luckman. I'm just saying, this is all why you can't compare him even to Otto Graham and certainly not Unitas. It's the same reason you can't compare Don Hutson to any of the great WRs who came later. Their situations were so different from those who came after them.
As I said, you can only compare players against the era they were in. As for "Mt. Rushmore", that's what makes it interesting, Baugh is different from Graham who is different from Unitas, who was different from Montana. It's grabbing players from different offenses/eras, even if you can say the first three all played in the 50's ... (as you pointed out, it was a period of transition . . . )

Quote
I appreciate your point about adding 5 more QBs, and Sammy would still be top-2. We do disagree here, on this unresolvable hypothetical. You say add 5, I'm going to just add one: Davey O'Brien decides to stay with the Eagles instead of joining the FBI. You can't say he wouldn't have surpassed Sammy if he'd stayed in the game, just as I can't say he would have. But it's possible. We can agree to disagree about whether there were other players who went to war, or who ended up with the Cardinals or Dodgers instead of the Packers or Eagles, who could have played the game at the same level if given the opportunity.
Again, we can only go off of what did happen (you're putting Baugh at top-2, fine with me) ... So he's top-2. The hypothetical is based on the theory of players that were playing, continued playing - or aspired to but weren't good enough to play - pro football. O'Brien wouldn't be one of the 20 plus QB's you would throw in the mix since he of course joined the FBI (though I do like that you went there with your hypothetical, excellent.) Either way, don't want to derail the point with semantics. The teams thing goes back to the top of things out of the players control (A. Manning, etc ...)

Can only go on what did happen, what is and what was. Baugh was arguably the best at his position pre-QB (and arguably the best player in all of football, which best players is a different topic), was best or "top-2", whatever one wants to say, as a QB.

Eye test, what did happen in his career, etc ... it's all enough for me, regardless of how many teams there were.

I accept and get the "not many QB's" point, but will always argue against the "if there was more teams the best players would have been worse" implication ... not that you directly said that, which is why I was asking what exactly your point was.

#28 JWL - PFRA Member
Posted 10 July 2014 - 04:54 AM
Jeffrey Miller, on 08 Jul 2014 - 5:17 PM, said:
So what is your criteria for "elite"? With all of this talk about there being so many elite QBs in the game, I wonder how many of them truly are ...

It is a combination of consistent great play, statistics, major awards won, and anything else that might indicate a QB is spectacular. There is no true science to this. In the end, it is subjective. I take into account several categories and then I decide who I feel is elite. Elite means best. It doesn't mean good.

For the past half decade, I consider the elite quarterbacks to be Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Peyton Manning. I like keeping the elite list to four or less.

I can listen to arguments for Ben Roethlisberger instead of Brees, but then I think Philip Rivers is pretty close to Roethlisberger and then I think Matt Ryan is pretty close to Rivers and then I think Eli Manning is pretty close to Ryan and on and on. Next thing you know, I've listed a dozen QBs and that is ridiculous because elite means best and there just can't be 12 best QBs in a given year or era. At some point, you have to pick a number and stick to it. I like four.

#29 JohnMaxymuk - PFRA Member
Posted 10 July 2014 - 07:08 AM
It should be pointed out that while Baugh was always a passer, he was only a T quarterback for roughly the second half of his long career. Both Baugh and Luckman were great leaders and great passers (as well as many other things in two-way football). To take just one measure, both guys (in addition to graham) were an outrageous 50% better than the league average in passer rating when you index the numbers.

They were the elite pair of their time. Would they be at that level today? Who knows, but i tend to think so. I try to imagine not that we simply pluck some player from the past and throw onto a playing field today, but rather as if that player from the past were actually born in this time period and grew up and trained with all the advantages of the more modern day. I think Sam and Sid had that kind of talent.

#30 rhickok1109 - PFRA Member
Posted 10 July 2014 - 08:20 AM
A couple of small points about Sammy Baugh:

1. Dutch Meyer created the famous TCU spread formation in 1934 because he had Baugh as a passer. I don't know of any other offense that was built entirely around one player.

2. Johnny Blood told me, about 35 years ago, that if he could choose one player from all of history to build a team around, it would be Baugh.

#31 Bernard Brinker - Forum Visitors
Posted 10 July 2014 - 10:23 AM
Reaser, on 10 Jul 2014 - 01:59 AM, said:
Of course, the point was obviously that you can only judge players on what they did. What offense they were in is pretty much the Montana debate, for me I don't do 'what if', I solely judge him on what really happened since that's all there is. Plus numerous players succeeded or failed based on circumstances out of their control (e.g. what team they ended up with.)

As I said, you can only compare players against the era they were in. As for "Mt. Rushmore", that's what makes it interesting, Baugh is different from Graham who is different from Unitas, who was different from Montana. It's grabbing players from different offenses/eras, even if you can say the first three all played in the 50's ... (as you pointed out, it was a period of transition . . . )

Again, we can only go off of what did happen (you're putting Baugh at top-2, fine with me) ... So he's top-2. The hypothetical is based on the theory of players that were playing, continued playing - or aspired to but weren't good enough to play - pro football. O'Brien wouldn't be one of the 20 plus QB's you would throw in the mix since he of course joined the FBI (though I do like that you went there with your hypothetical, excellent.) Either way, don't want to derail the point with semantics. The teams thing goes back to the top of things out of the players control (A. Manning, etc ...)

Can only go on what did happen, what is and what was. Baugh was arguably the best at his position pre-QB (and arguably the best player in all of football, which best players is a different topic), was best or "top-2", whatever one wants to say, as a QB.

Eye test, what did happen in his career, etc ... it's all enough for me, regardless of how many teams there were.

I accept and get the "not many QB's" point, but will always argue against the "if there was more teams the best players would have been worse" implication ... not that you directly said that, which is why I was asking what exactly your point was.

Not sure I understand your position on hypotheticals. Above you seem to close off all such avenues but writing about Peyton Manning's legacy (in "Speaking of things that grind my gears") you raised a number of hypotheticals that "need [to be] answered," for example, what if Manning had been drafted by San Diego or what if Manning had played in an earlier rougher era?

These hypotheticals are difficult questions, one might say impossible questions, but they get at more than just what happened, such questions try to comprehend why something happened as it did, which causes were most important to its happening. As such there seems to be some room for hypothetical questions, not to establish what might have happened but to make clearer what really did happen.

#32 NWebster - Forum Visitors
Posted 10 July 2014 - 10:49 AM
Posted 10 July 2014 - 10:49 AM
I like to kind of think of it like boxing rankings, if every year you gave a belt to the guy who was the best in that year and the previous few - not sure I'd hand Stabler or Jones the belt just for their 76 season - who wears it.

1950-1955: Graham
1956: This one gets tough, definitely a transitional period between Graham and Unitas - it comes down to Brown, Connerly or Rote to me. I'd probably go with Connerly on the strength of his 1956 and his better overall career.
1957-1960: Unitas. I tend to think of Unitas as exploding out of nowhere in 58, but he led the league in yards, TDs and Rating in 57, wins the greatest game ever played in 58, repeats in 59. In 1960 Unitas still holds the belt but its in part due to the prior 3 seasons - Milt Plum has the more efficient season, but you'd still take Unitas over him, right?
1961: As Unitas has a poor season by his standards Plum takes it on a second straight strong season, edging out Jurgenson and Wade.
1962: Another close call, Starr is efficient and wins a title on one the best teams ever, but Wade is very effective again, while Jorgensen puts up big raw numbers in a not very efficient fashion on a poor team - Starr takes the belt by a hair over Wade.
1963: The old man YA Tittle takes the belt on the back of a huge season and the new TD passing record, Unitas rebounds but has been down for a couple of years and isn't as good as Tittle in this season
1964-1965: Unitas reclaims the belt, its him and Starr - but the Colts are more a passing team than the Packers. Brodie comes on in 66, but is new to being elite, Unitas gets the nod.
1966: Its Starr again, highly efficient - has put himself firmly in the conversation for best QB of the mid 60's.
1967: Starr is hurt and Jorgensen takes it, now he's putting up big raw numbers and is efficient.
1968-1970 Jorgensen hold the belt, though Morral has the better individual season, an odd year, transitional as well as the greats - Unitas/Starr are beginning to age, Sonny is no spring chicken either. Roman Gabriel comes on in 69/70, Jorgensen hold the belt, though its close.
1971: The rise of Roger the dodger, Staubach is the most efficient passer and takes his team to a Super Bowl.
1972: Billy Kilmer on top fora single season.
1973: Staubach is back.
1974-1975: Kenny Anderson puts up two phenomenal seasons likely to never be fully appreciated, coming in the midst of the NFLs dead ball era.
1976: Anderson falls off and Stabler and Jones split the title - I'll give Jones the WBO belt and Stabler the WBC. Tarkenton for the fourth or fifth time is in third place.
1977-1979: Staubach holds off Bradshaw.
1980-1982: Fouts on the back of record shattering raw numbers, holds off Anderson and his efficient attack.
1983-1986: Marino, 83 is a bit of a stretch, but certainly 84-86 was Marino time.
1987-1990: Montana, 87 and 89 were transcendent in terms of efficiency, if you had your choice in 88, you'd still take Joe. By 1990 Kelly and Moon are throwing a lot more, but Joe is still QB'ing his tram to the NFC Championship game.
1991-1994: Steve Young leads the NFL in passer rating for four consecutive seasons. This has never happened before.
1995-1997: Young doesn't play in 16 games in 95 or 96 and Favre leads the league in efficiency and raw numbers to take the lead. Young plays 15 games in 97 and posts a higher passer rating, but Favre is on his way to another MVP and Super Bowl, this time in a losing effort.
1998: Favre falls off just enough for Young to slide past him from 2nd in the prior season to 1st in 1998.
1999-2001: Launch of he greatest show on turf and Warner is clearly the best.
2002: Warner is injured and Bulger steps in admirably. In another transitional year, post greatest show on turf and pre Manning, Rich Gannon is efficient, prolific, old and in a Super Bowl, he's the QB of the moment.
2003: Steve McNair takes the title, Manning has a fantastic year but hasn't fully ascended yet.
2004-2006: Manning breaks multiple records in 2004 and maintains the strong pace and is the most-efficient passer in the league.
2007: Add Randy Moss to the Tom Brady mix and the records Manning just set fall.
2008: Manning and Brees have two similar years as Brady is hurt. Manning regains the belt based on his similar in year performance and his history.
2009: Brees breaks through, despite Manning sustaining. His level, Brees leads his team to the Super Bowl and takes the belt from Peyton.
2010: The title rotates back to Brady after a few years of Manning/Brees/Brady.
2011-2012: Aaron Rogers joints the elite group and surpasses the others, aided by Manning missing 2011.
2013: Rogers is injured and Manning re-breaks the records taken from him.
Thoughts???

#33 conace21 - Forum Visitors
Posted 10 July 2014 - 11:16 AM
Great list. I would say that Van Brocklin and Layne might cut into one or two of Graham 's seasons, and I'd take Jim Kelly in 1990-91. Kelly led the league in passer rating in 1990, and led the AFC in 1991. Two AFC championships. Joe threw a career high 16 interceptions in 1990, though he sure didn't have much of a running game. Young led the league in passer rating in 1991, but missed several games due to injury, and SF missed the playoffs.

#34 NWebster - Forum Visitors
Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:09 PM
conace21, on 10 Jul 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:
Great list. I would say that Van Brocklin and Layne might cut into one or two of Graham 's seasons, and I'd take Jim Kelly in 1990-91. Kelly led the league in passer rating in 1990, and led the AFC in 1991. Two AFC championships. Joe threw a career high 16 interceptions in 1990, though he sure didn't have much of a running game. Young led the league in passer rating in 1991, but missed several games due to injury, and SF missed the playoffs.

I definitely thought about NVB in the early 50's. I suppose some of that depends how much credit you give Otto for AAFC work. If he'd had all the snaps Waterfield had in 50-52, then its a real horse race.

#35 conace21 - Forum Visitors
Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:24 PM
Very true. The Rams combined may have had the best QB play in 1950-51, but how much do you assign to Waterfield and NVB as individuals?

#36 Reaser - PFRA Member
Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:27 PM
Bernard Brinker, on 10 Jul 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:
writing about Peyton Manning's legacy (in "Speaking of things that grind my gears") you raised a number of hypotheticals that "need [to be] answered," for example, what if Manning had been drafted by San Diego or what if Manning had played in an earlier rougher era?

Ugh, read the link in that thread then read my response in that thread again, clearly sarcasm.

#37 Reaser - PFRA Member
Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:34 PM
NWebster, on 10 Jul 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:
I like to kind of think of it like boxing rankings, if every year you gave a belt to the guy who was the best in that year and the previous few - not sure
Thoughts???

Awesome! I like boxing, I like titles, I like scrolling through title history.

It was all great until you didn't have a unified champion in '76, ha. Also, left out the bare knuckles days.

#38 Bernard Brinker - Forum Visitors
Posted 10 July 2014 - 02:15 PM
Reaser, on 10 Jul 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:
Ugh, read the link in that thread then read my response in that thread again, clearly sarcasm.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

#39 Reaser - PFRA Member
Posted 10 July 2014 - 02:19 PM
Bernard Brinker, on 10 Jul 2014 - 2:15 PM, said:
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

All good.

#40 Bernard Brinker - Forum Visitors
Posted 10 July 2014 - 02:30 PM
NWebster, on 10 Jul 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:
I like to kind of think of it like boxing rankings, if every year you gave a belt to the guy who was the best in that year and the previous few - not sure I'd hand Stabler or Jones the belt just for their 76 season - who wears it.
Thoughts???

Great concept. However, if the title belt changes depending on who had the best year the list will be very similar to most all-pro lists. Perhaps could structure it more like golf, that is, a three or two year weighted average (of all-pro totals or passer ratings?).

Page 2 of 3
oldecapecod 11

Elite Quarterbacks
Started by Jeffrey Miller, Jul 08 2014 05:17 PM

Page 3 of

41 replies to this topic
#41 NWebster - Forum Visitors
Posted 10 July 2014 - 02:53 PM
Bernard Brinker, on 10 Jul 2014 - 2:30 PM, said:
Great concept. However, if the title belt changes depending on who had the best year the list will be very similar to most all-pro lists. Perhaps could structure it more like golf, that is, a three or two year weighted average (of all-pro totals or passer ratings?).

I like the boxing analogy in that it does bring in some history, you have to be a strong contendor to even get a shot at the champ, and that's usually (not always) more than a handful of good outcomes. I'd be good with a golf style ranking as well.

#42 Reaser - PFRA Member
Posted 10 July 2014 - 03:02 PM
NWebster, on 10 Jul 2014 - 2:53 PM, said:
I like the boxing analogy in that it does bring in some history, you have to be a strong contendor to even get a shot at the champ, and that's usually (not always) more than a handful of good outcomes.
I like how you went with that, as well. Did a bit of it, where you had the 'champ' having to be knocked off instead of just a yearly list. Like having Warner 99-01 when in 2000 it could have been a handful of other QB's, but Warner didn't lose his 'title'. For a different type of list it's great, if we went yearly you could have Warner-Gannon-Warner, but title reign style you just have Warner holding the belt for 3 years. I like it.

Page 3 of 3