Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Bryan wrote:What "system" does the NFL/PFRA people use to recognize historic passing leaders? The rating system that was in use as that time, or applying the current rating system to past seasons?

I'd like to know the answer to this as well.

Bryan wrote:What "system" does the NFL/PFRA people use to recognize historic passing leaders? The rating system that was in use as that time, or applying the current rating system to past seasons?

I don't believe there's any way to compare passers across eras simply by using statistics. The standards have changed way too much over time. But I don't think it's that important to have a precise ranking, because I don't feel any need to say, for instance, Sammy Baugh was No. 4, Bart Starr was No. 5, Roger Staubach was No. 6 and Peyton Manning is No. 7. I think you have to allow room for "interpretation," or whatever you want to call it, and not just rely on the stats, or who won the most championships. There's not one magic number, or one definitive ranking, and there doesn't have to be.

Bob Gill wrote:I don't believe there's any way to compare passers across eras simply by using statistics. The standards have changed way too much over time. But I don't think it's that important to have a precise ranking, because I don't feel any need to say, for instance, Sammy Baugh was No. 4, Bart Starr was No. 5, Roger Staubach was No. 6 and Peyton Manning is No. 7. I think you have to allow room for "interpretation," or whatever you want to call it, and not just rely on the stats, or who won the most championships. There's not one magic number, or one definitive ranking, and there doesn't have to be.

Well said, Bob.

Also, I think it goes without saying but the passing champion for each season is who it is based on the "formula"/"system" of that season.

There's a concise history on this in the book THE HIDDEN GAME OF FOOTBALL.

Todd Pence wrote:There's a concise history on this in the book THE HIDDEN GAME OF FOOTBALL.

I believe it has that mistaken bit about using only completion percentage from 1938 to 1940, though. Otherwise, I think it's the same list that Matt found earlier -- and maybe it came from the same original source.

Reaser wrote: Also, I think it goes without saying but the passing champion for each season is who it is based on the "formula"/"system" of that season.

Obviously, but do you think thats the most accurate/valid way to view QBs through the retrospective lens?

My recollection of pro football in the early 60's is not that much attention was paid to QB ratings. Y.A. Tittle got enormous publicity during 1962-63 for TD passes and the NY Giants winning record during those years.

Johnny Unitas was considered the best QB ever because of his overall play. Toward the latter part of the decade, the passing rating was given more importance, but a QB winning games and titles was the major indicator for a QB's reputation.

Bryan wrote:Obviously, but do you think thats the most accurate/valid way to view QBs through the retrospective lens?

Well you can't change history, so yes, the most accurate way to say who was the passing champion is to list who was crowned at the time under the 'system' of the time. Sort of like for teams championships are championships, whether they played in the 50's when you actually had to be the best team/have the best record in your conference to play for the championship or play now where you can be average, not even win your own little 4-team division, but still make the playoffs and go on a run to be 'World Champion' ... Whatever is, is.

Most valid way to view a QB? Personally no, first because this is just about passing and there's much more to playing the position, and second because I don't really care about stats that much and I think the best way to view QB's is to actually view the QB's (i.e. watch football), as opposed to reading box scores or adding up numbers that may or may not have any relevance. I had the pads on and was a QB 10 years youth football through JUCO and had games where I played and threw great but at the end of the game my stats were bad, and games where I knew I was playing bad and the next morning in multiple newspapers I was 'Top Performer" of the week . . . So that's always summed up stats, for me. From personal experience, obviously at lower levels but football is football, stats might confirm a story, but rarely tell the story.

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

- credited (falsely, it is believed) to Disraeli.
And... when he traveled, his wife never sang:
Won't you come home, Disraeli. Won't you come home...
That's false too.