'Mt Rushmore' All-Time QBs

JohnH19
Posts: 912
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:18 pm

Re: 'Mt Rushmore' All-Time QBs

Post by JohnH19 »

conace21 wrote: Kind of like Montana. If Joe is drafted by any other team, he does not win 4 Super Bowls. Now, I don't think he would have been a mediocre player on another team. He had the accuracy, quick feet, quick mind, and grace under pressure to play for anyone, albeit not at the same level that he reached with SF. But I don't think SF wins 4 Super Bowls without #16 back there.
We can't say for certain that Montana wouldn't have won four SBs and we also can't say that he wouldn't have reached the same level on another team. He was pretty damn good for two years in KC at an advanced age, after being out for essentially two years, so why couldn't he have been the best in the game as a younger man on a team other than SF?

Did Walsh make Montana, did Montana make Walsh or did they make each other? I'm guessing all three apply but I also believe that they would have both been successful in almost any situation.
John Maxymuk
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: 'Mt Rushmore' All-Time QBs

Post by John Maxymuk »

mwald wrote:
Bob Gill wrote:I often say Luckman and Starr are the most underappreciated of the top quarterbacks.
People who evaluate Starr’s place in history generally fall into two camps: those who think he’s underappreciated, slighted by historians and media, and those who view him as a game manager or caretaker of Lombardi’s system.

He’s probably both, but evidence weighs in favor of the latter.

Any QB with a 5-1 record in championship games over eight years probably deserves to be on the short list of all-time greats. Starr also has a W-L record of 77-23-4 and bested the league average for Yards Per Pass Attempt from 1959-1967 (YPPA might not be the best way to measure a QB but it’s probably the most consistent over time). Tough to top those numbers.

But he also had a losing record before and after Lombardi and shouldered less of the load than other championship quarterbacks of his era. If a running game and a defense are a quarterback’s best friend, Starr was better positioned for success than his championship peers.

Some modern analysts have tried to reposition the 60s Packers as a passing team because they passed efficiently, pointing out how three Packers championship teams (1965, 1966, 1967) averaged less than (or equal to) 4 yards per carry on the ground. But almost all championship teams pass efficiently, so it’s no surprise the 60s Packers would share that trait. And yards per carry isn’t necessarily the best way to judge success on the ground.

How often and when did a team run—what is their identity?—might be a better approach. The Packers were a dominant ball control team that ran more often and racked up more first downs on the ground than almost any team of their era.

Since rush attempts usually favor the winning team (teams with a lead run out the clock on the ground), comparing Lombardi’s Packers to the other championship teams of the era makes sense. Like the Packers, these teams had halftime leads in most of the games they played. With rare exception the Packers passed less, ran more, and achieved more first downs on the ground than the others.

Team/Percent Running Plays

1962 Packers 62%
1961 Packers 61%
1966 Packers 60%
1962 Texans 60%
1967 Packers 59%
1965 Packers 59%
1964 Browns 56%
1964 Bills 55%
1963 Bears 55%
1966 Chiefs 54%
1959 Colts 54%
1963 Chargers 53%
1960 Eagles 51%
1960 Oilers 50%
1967 Raiders 50%
1961 Oilers 48%
1965 Bills 46%

Team/Percent 1st Downs Rushing

1961 Packers 55%
1962 Packers 55%
1967 Packers 51%
1964 Browns 50%
1962 Texans 49%
1963 Bears 48%
1963 Chargers 47%
1964 Bills 47%
1966 Packers 46%
1965 Packers 45%
1966 Chiefs 43%
1959 Colts 39%
1965 Bills 37%
1960 Oilers 35%
1961 Oilers 35%
1967 Raiders 34%
1960 Eagles 31%

Turning to defense, Lombardi’s Packers allowed 15.4 points per game from 1959-1967, easily topping Baltimore’s 18.8. And using the same comparison as above, the Packers were superior on defense to all their championship peers except the 1963 Chicago Bears.

Team/Def PPG

1963 Bears 10.3
1962 Packers 10.6
1966 Packers 11.6
1967 Packers 14.9
1961 Packers 15.9
1965 Packers 16.0
1965 Bills 16.1
1962 Texans 16.6
1967 Raiders 16.6
1964 Bills 17.3
1961 Oilers 17.3
1963 Chargers 18.2
1966 Chiefs 19.7
1960 Oilers 20.4
1960 Eagles 20.5
1964 Browns 20.9
1959 Colts 20.9

Team/Def Passer Rating

1963 Bears 34.8
1967 Packers 41.5
1961 Oilers 42.1
1962 Packers 43.4
1959 Colts 45.1
1966 Packers 46.1
1967 Raiders 47.9
1965 Packers 48.2
1966 Chiefs 48.8
1960 Eagles 49.1
1962 Texans 51.8
1961 Packers 53.7
1965 Bills 54.2
1963 Chargers 55.5
1964 Bills 60.9
1960 Oilers 69.7
1964 Browns 75.6

Then there’s the Lombardi factor. Starr has a winning record under Lombardi, but lost under Blackburn, McClean, Bengston, and Devine. But other quarterbacks often mentioned as the greatest ever won under more than one coach. Unitas won under Ewbank, Shula, and McCafferty. Elway won under Reeves, Shanahan, and Phillips. Montana won under Walsh, Seifert, and Schottenheimer.

Teams change. Talent moves on or gets old. Comparing W-L records to other quarterbacks might be unfair because the factors aren’t the same. And does the quarterback make the coach or vice versa? Wherever you stand on these points, Starr struggled to win on the field outside the Lombardi years.

Starr is one of the greatest winners of all time, but he had more help than most. Many fail when opportunity calls. When Starr got his opportunity he delivered. But supported by a defense and running attack that controlled the game at a level superior to other championship teams of his era, he was in a situation tailor-made for quarterback success.
Very interesting post, but I would make a couple points. First, i don't think Unitas or Elway or Montana would have done any better leading the Packer teams coached by Blackbourn, McLean, Bengtson and devine, particularly if they were at the same stage of age and health as Starr was in those years.

Second, football is the ultimate team sport. Yes, quarterback is the most important position, but no quarterback wins unless he is surrounded by talent. The Colts were an excellent organization and surrounded Johnny U with lots of talent on both sides of the ball for his entire career; starr was not as fortunate at the beginning and end of his career.

Finally, the Pack's three-peat was on the arm and brains of Starr (offensively). He was the most accurate passer in the league and the smartest playcaller. I consider him very underrated.
Reaser
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:58 am
Location: WA

Re: 'Mt Rushmore' All-Time QBs

Post by Reaser »

John Maxymuk wrote:football is the ultimate team sport ...
This.
mwald
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:37 pm

Re: 'Mt Rushmore' All-Time QBs

Post by mwald »

John Maxymuk wrote: Finally, the Pack's three-peat was on the arm and brains of Starr (offensively). He was the most accurate passer in the league and the smartest playcaller. I consider him very underrated.
Agreed. But ask quarterbacks the ideal situation in which to be successful most would mention playing with a lead in a game where their own defense isn't giving up points and their running game is humming. Under Lombardi, Starr enjoyed the benefit of that situation more than any quarterback of his era.

Passing when you want to not because you have to, against a defense expecting run all the way, consistently moving the 1st down chains on the ground, it's no surprise the throws have a chance to be smarter and more accurate.

A below average quarterback could mess that up. Starr maximized it, so he deserves credit. But he was in the ideal situation to be successful.
conace21
Posts: 934
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:08 am

Re: 'Mt Rushmore' All-Time QBs

Post by conace21 »

JohnH19 wrote:
conace21 wrote: Kind of like Montana. If Joe is drafted by any other team, he does not win 4 Super Bowls. Now, I don't think he would have been a mediocre player on another team. He had the accuracy, quick feet, quick mind, and grace under pressure to play for anyone, albeit not at the same level that he reached with SF. But I don't think SF wins 4 Super Bowls without #16 back there.
We can't say for certain that Montana wouldn't have won four SBs and we also can't say that he wouldn't have reached the same level on another team. He was pretty damn good for two years in KC at an advanced age, after being out for essentially two years, so why couldn't he have been the best in the game as a younger man on a team other than SF?

Did Walsh make Montana, did Montana make Walsh or did they make each other? I'm guessing all three apply but I also believe that they would have both been successful in almost any situation.
Oh I know there's no way to prove how Joe would have done on another team. Just my opinion. I think Joe would have enjoyed success on another team. I remember writing in a post on the old forum that I think he may well have won 1 or 2 Super Bowls with almost anyone besides a toxic organization like TB or St. Louis. But I don't think he would have reached the heights without Walsh.

Montana was above average for a KC team that didn't have a lot of offensive skill talent, but was very well coached and had a very good defense.

Very rare is the QB who succeeds without top level talent around him. John Elway was one such QB. He had top physical skills to take three above average teams to the Super Bowl. But even Elway couldn't win one until he had HOF level-talent around him. (Zimmerman, Davis, Sharpe.)
luckyshow
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:49 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: 'Mt Rushmore' All-Time QBs

Post by luckyshow »

I don't know what is the ultimate sport. Seems pretentious. Maybe it is cricket because I can't really understand it and it lasts for days.

Football ultimate? Then why do the rules change annually almost since its inception. Something ultimate doesn't need additions and corrections and such so oft maybe it does. I don't really know.

All of a sudden I am some sort of expert referenced all the time though I make zilch from it and really don't know so much.

Just because baseball is not as popular now doesn't mean it isn't a so-called ultimate sport (though there seems mental gaps in those who think it is too long now and constantly bring up short games of yore, without mentioning how the extended commercial breaks have added at least 40 minutes to games in past 30 years or so (especially world series games, where it is probably an hour). Some might say soccer is the ultimate sport. Rarely changed over time, popular everywhere. Or basketball due to its simplicity, supposed simplicity though three-pointers and time clocks make it less so.

Maybe games like lacrosse or field hockey, though I am unsure whether by ultimate we mean as a spectator sport or as one to play.

I guess it isn't hurling or curling. Or tennis or bowling. Some think golf is.

Roller derby? Fencing? The marathon? Race walking? Demolition derby?

Remember barrel jumping? Maybe that is ultimate.

There is the ridiculous popularity of ultimate fighting which even uses the word, ultimate...

Is football still the "scientific" sport? That terminology hasn't been used in about a century or more. Baseball now is enmeshed with detailed stats to the painstakingly ridiculous level, and X-gamers may bring about absurd rules changes. Maybe platooning or unlimited substitution.

How ultimate is announcing whether receivers are eligible or not, or complaining about placekicking so often? Was the game more ultimate when placekickers didn't kick from the side? Had to already be in the game? Used fatter balls or wider hash marks?

Is it more ultimate since the rule about tacking was changed in 1956? Eliminating tie games made it more ultimate? Was it more ultimate when 0-0 games were vastly appreciated?

Whatever sport you find the most fun to watch or play is the ultimate really since it is so subjective. Ice hockey purer? Should they bring back the blue line? More offsides?

Basketball purer? Bring back the constant center jump, or at least jump balls on tie-ups in college? Would baseball be more ultimate if they eliminated the DH?

How do I know? Just seems that assuming football is somehow the ultimate sport and letting that just pass bay as fact , is sort of pedantic...
BernardB
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:00 pm

Re: 'Mt Rushmore' All-Time QBs

Post by BernardB »

On Bart Starr being underappreciated.

There are at least ten quarterbacks, if not more, whom one could make a decent case for being the best of all time. Bart Starr is certainly one. To the extent he is left out of that conversation, strikes me as to his being underappreciated.
rhickok1109
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:57 am

Re: 'Mt Rushmore' All-Time QBs

Post by rhickok1109 »

luckyshow wrote:I don't know what is the ultimate sport. Seems pretentious. Maybe it is cricket because I can't really understand it and it lasts for days.

Football ultimate? Then why do the rules change annually almost since its inception. Something ultimate doesn't need additions and corrections and such so oft maybe it does. I don't really know.

All of a sudden I am some sort of expert referenced all the time though I make zilch from it and really don't know so much.

Just because baseball is not as popular now doesn't mean it isn't a so-called ultimate sport (though there seems mental gaps in those who think it is too long now and constantly bring up short games of yore, without mentioning how the extended commercial breaks have added at least 40 minutes to games in past 30 years or so (especially world series games, where it is probably an hour). Some might say soccer is the ultimate sport. Rarely changed over time, popular everywhere. Or basketball due to its simplicity, supposed simplicity though three-pointers and time clocks make it less so.

Maybe games like lacrosse or field hockey, though I am unsure whether by ultimate we mean as a spectator sport or as one to play.

I guess it isn't hurling or curling. Or tennis or bowling. Some think golf is.

Roller derby? Fencing? The marathon? Race walking? Demolition derby?

Remember barrel jumping? Maybe that is ultimate.

There is the ridiculous popularity of ultimate fighting which even uses the word, ultimate...

Is football still the "scientific" sport? That terminology hasn't been used in about a century or more. Baseball now is enmeshed with detailed stats to the painstakingly ridiculous level, and X-gamers may bring about absurd rules changes. Maybe platooning or unlimited substitution.

How ultimate is announcing whether receivers are eligible or not, or complaining about placekicking so often? Was the game more ultimate when placekickers didn't kick from the side? Had to already be in the game? Used fatter balls or wider hash marks?

Is it more ultimate since the rule about tacking was changed in 1956? Eliminating tie games made it more ultimate? Was it more ultimate when 0-0 games were vastly appreciated?

Whatever sport you find the most fun to watch or play is the ultimate really since it is so subjective. Ice hockey purer? Should they bring back the blue line? More offsides?

Basketball purer? Bring back the constant center jump, or at least jump balls on tie-ups in college? Would baseball be more ultimate if they eliminated the DH?

How do I know? Just seems that assuming football is somehow the ultimate sport and letting that just pass bay as fact , is sort of pedantic...
The statement was not that football is the ultimate sport, but that it is the ultimate team sport, simply meaning that it relies on teamwork more than any other team sport.
John Maxymuk
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: 'Mt Rushmore' All-Time QBs

Post by John Maxymuk »

luckyshow wrote:I don't know what is the ultimate sport. Seems pretentious. Maybe it is cricket because I can't really understand it and it lasts for days.

Football ultimate? Then why do the rules change annually almost since its inception. Something ultimate doesn't need additions and corrections and such so oft maybe it does. I don't really know.

All of a sudden I am some sort of expert referenced all the time though I make zilch from it and really don't know so much.

Just because baseball is not as popular now doesn't mean it isn't a so-called ultimate sport (though there seems mental gaps in those who think it is too long now and constantly bring up short games of yore, without mentioning how the extended commercial breaks have added at least 40 minutes to games in past 30 years or so (especially world series games, where it is probably an hour). Some might say soccer is the ultimate sport. Rarely changed over time, popular everywhere. Or basketball due to its simplicity, supposed simplicity though three-pointers and time clocks make it less so.

Maybe games like lacrosse or field hockey, though I am unsure whether by ultimate we mean as a spectator sport or as one to play.

I guess it isn't hurling or curling. Or tennis or bowling. Some think golf is.

Roller derby? Fencing? The marathon? Race walking? Demolition derby?

Remember barrel jumping? Maybe that is ultimate.

There is the ridiculous popularity of ultimate fighting which even uses the word, ultimate...

Is football still the "scientific" sport? That terminology hasn't been used in about a century or more. Baseball now is enmeshed with detailed stats to the painstakingly ridiculous level, and X-gamers may bring about absurd rules changes. Maybe platooning or unlimited substitution.

How ultimate is announcing whether receivers are eligible or not, or complaining about placekicking so often? Was the game more ultimate when placekickers didn't kick from the side? Had to already be in the game? Used fatter balls or wider hash marks?

Is it more ultimate since the rule about tacking was changed in 1956? Eliminating tie games made it more ultimate? Was it more ultimate when 0-0 games were vastly appreciated?

Whatever sport you find the most fun to watch or play is the ultimate really since it is so subjective. Ice hockey purer? Should they bring back the blue line? More offsides?

Basketball purer? Bring back the constant center jump, or at least jump balls on tie-ups in college? Would baseball be more ultimate if they eliminated the DH?

How do I know? Just seems that assuming football is somehow the ultimate sport and letting that just pass bay as fact , is sort of pedantic...
The key word in the phrase was team. I consider football the ultimate TEAM sport. Doesn't matter if rules change, the basic point is there are 11 men on a side, 22 on the field at once and they need to work in congress on each play. Every player has a role on every play and each role fits into the team's plan on each play. I don't think any other major sport compares in this aspect.
John Maxymuk
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: 'Mt Rushmore' All-Time QBs

Post by John Maxymuk »

mwald wrote:
John Maxymuk wrote: Finally, the Pack's three-peat was on the arm and brains of Starr (offensively). He was the most accurate passer in the league and the smartest playcaller. I consider him very underrated.
Agreed. But ask quarterbacks the ideal situation in which to be successful most would mention playing with a lead in a game where their own defense isn't giving up points and their running game is humming. Under Lombardi, Starr enjoyed the benefit of that situation more than any quarterback of his era.

Passing when you want to not because you have to, against a defense expecting run all the way, consistently moving the 1st down chains on the ground, it's no surprise the throws have a chance to be smarter and more accurate.

A below average quarterback could mess that up. Starr maximized it, so he deserves credit. But he was in the ideal situation to be successful.
I think this goes back to your point that a running game can still be effective even if the average gain is substandard for the league. I think there is some truth to that, but when you then say "consistently moving the first down chains on the ground," you are exaggerating how effective that running game is. It would be an interesting to see how well the Pack ran the ball on first down during the threepeat. I would think not so well making Starr's passing effectiveness more crucial.

Actually, i like Bernard's point that Starr is in the mix amongst the best and Matt's point that we should probably be discussing a whole lot more than a top 4.
Post Reply