Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

The 10 quarterbacks are, in alphabetical order, Sammy Baugh, Tom Brady, John Elway, Brett Favre, Otto Graham, Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Joe Montana, Roger Staubach, and John Unitas.


____________


My only quibble is Rodgers > Marino even when taking era into account. Marino one of most overrated, empty stats guys out there.

But, as always, reasonable people can disagree and once again the blue ribbon committee did an excellent job. As I said this is a quibble, not a flat our error.

John, are you OK with Favre over Brees? Modern QBs are outside my expertise, but I always wondered about Favre ranking so high - I recall John Madden liking him a lot, but I don't remember him as being a player to fear in clutch situations although could be just recentness bias or whatever you call it - I don't think he's top 10 for his time with the Jets, etc.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:John, are you OK with Favre over Brees? Modern QBs are outside my expertise, but I always wondered about Favre ranking so high - I recall John Madden liking him a lot, but I don't remember him as being a player to fear in clutch situations although could be just recentness bias or whatever you call it - I don't think he's top 10 for his time with the Jets, etc.

I am...but if someone put Brees in top 10 and Favre, I'd have no problem with that, either. Jerry Burns who still was active in Vikings afairs until the early 2000s and longer (they gave him game tapes, he evaluated, gave opinions, but not part of staff, just an informal consultant) called Favre the "best ever" in say, 2002-03 cannot remember exactly

so that's one data point.

I think after you get past the top maybe 5-6, 7-15 could go in any order and not be wrong. I put Marino at 13th, for example, but that's me. Someone else can put him in top 10 and you cannot argue against it.

With Rodgers, it's the "eye test" that makes me like him, over and above his stats. Brees looks great, too, but if you ask me to name who I'd prefer Farve or Brees, I'd go Favre.

He and Rodgers were just so great to watch...But then I look at Aikman, not sure anyone threw a better ball and if he was in pass-happy offense, I 100% think he'd put up big numbers. So accurate. But to him it was about the rings. Starr gets 5 rings and gets left out. Bradshaw---

Eye test for Young is off the charts, but you look at his career, only 8 years as primary starter, I don't think he's a strong 1st ballot guy.

So, it was a good exercise and with the QBs I don't have a major quibble.

My biggest quibbles were Atkins, Upshaw, Hirsch, Lechler, ....Faulk, LT maybe 1-2 others. But people can look at my lists and easily quibble with them.

It's like this, the best of the best and the worst of the worst are the tail ends. The more you move to the middle the more debate there can be. Gets hard to separate

JohnH19 wrote:My 10 QBs:

Baugh
Graham
Unitas
Montana
P. Manning
Brady
————-
Tarkenton
Favre
Staubach
Elway

Edit: I believe Fran is deserving but I don’t think he has a snowball’s chance of making it. I think my top six are locks and the other three have a very good chance. Brees and/or Marino have a very good shot at replacing Tarkenton and maybe one of the other guys in my lower tier. My one issue with Brees making it is that he is “only” the third or fourth best QB of his era.

Nailed it! I wish Tarkenton would have made it but I knew he wouldn't.

If this team were for "iron men" or tough guys I think I'd put Favre near the top of the modern era candidates.
With this list I'd have rather seen... Tark, Young, Luckman, Van Brocklin... several others.

But that's what makes opinions so interesting... they're all different.

Watching the announcement show on NFL channel.
First half was all Belichick and Brady.
30 minutes in and they are just now introducing... Brett Favre??
(Were Joe and Peyton otherwise engaged?)

JuggernautJ wrote:If this team were for "iron men" or tough guys I think I'd put Favre near the top of the modern era candidates.
With this list I'd have rather seen... Tark, Young, Luckman, Van Brocklin... several others.

But that's what makes opinions so interesting... they're all different.

Tarkenton was an iron man, too. He didn’t suffer a significant injury until 1977, his 17th season.

JuggernautJ wrote:Watching the announcement show on NFL channel.
First half was all Belichick and Brady.
30 minutes in and they are just now introducing... Brett Favre??
(Were Joe and Peyton otherwise engaged?)

Joe was on the follow up reaction show. They talked with him for a bit.

How did Fran Tarkenton lose to Roger Staubach in getting on the NFL 100 All Time Team? They’re even on completion percentage and nearly even on yards per attempt and QB rating but Tarkenton has twice as many games, yards, and TDs while having fewer sacks than Staubach. This has nothing to do with Super Bowls. Dan Marino made the 100 and he’s been to one fewer Super Bowl than Fran.

RyanChristiansen wrote:How did Fran Tarkenton lose to Roger Staubach in getting on the NFL 100 All Time Team? They’re even on completion percentage and nearly even on yards per attempt and QB rating but Tarkenton has twice as many games, yards, and TDs while having fewer sacks than Staubach. This has nothing to do with Super Bowls. Dan Marino made the 100 and he’s been to one fewer Super Bowl than Fran.

Staubach used to be my #5 QB, before Peyton and Brady ascended. He strangely never was named All Pro, even though he was POY in 1971. Tarkenton played a long time and had amazing durability. His best season was 1975. His career numbers dwarf those of Staubach because Roger didn't make it to the NFL until he was 27, and he only started 8 seasons.
Marino has actually been to two fewer Super Bowls than Fran, but he had that three year run as the best QB in the NFL, from 1984-1986.